Cardiovascular magnetic resonance facilitates entirely contrast-free transcatheter aortic valve implantation: case report

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for left atrial appendage closure planning

BACKGROUND

Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) are currently utilized for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) planning. During the recent global iodine contrast media shortage in 2022, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) was utilized for the first time for LAAC planning. This study sought to assess the utility of CMR versus TEE for LAAC planning.

METHODS

This single center retrospective study consisted of all patients who underwent preoperative CMR for LAAC with Watchman FLX or Amplatzer Amulet. Key measures were accuracy of LAA thrombus exclusion, ostial diameter, depth, lobe count, morphology, accuracy of predicted device size, and devices deployed per case. Bland-Altman Analysis was used to compare CMR versus TEE measurements of LAA ostial diameter and depth.

RESULTS

25 patients underwent preoperative CMR for LAAC planning. A total of 24 (96%) cases were successfully completed with 1.2 ± 0.5 devices deployed per case. Among the 18 patients who underwent intraoperative TEE, there was no significant difference between CMR versus TEE in LAA thrombus exclusion (CMR 83% vs. TEE 100% cases, p = .229), lobe count (CMR 1.7 ± 0.8 vs. TEE 1.4 ± 0.6, p = .177), morphology (p = .422), and accuracy of predicted device size (CMR 67% vs. TEE 72% cases, p = 1.000). When comparing the difference between CMR and TEE measurements, Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated no significant difference in LAA ostial diameter (CMR-TEE bias 0.7 mm, 95% CI [-1.1, 2.4], p = .420), but LAA depth was significantly larger with CMR versus TEE (CMR-TEE bias 7.4 mm, 95% CI [1.6, 13.2], p = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

CMR is a promising alternative for LAAC planning in cases where TEE or CCTA are contraindicated or unavailable.

Biomechanics of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implant

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has grown exponentially within the cardiology and cardiac surgical spheres. It has now become a routine approach for treating aortic stenosis. Several concerns have been raised about TAVI in comparison to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The primary concerns regard the longevity of the valves. Several factors have been identified which may predict poor outcomes following TAVI. To this end, the lesser-used finite element analysis (FEA) was used to quantify the properties of calcifications which affect TAVI valves. This method can also be used in conjunction with other integrated software to ascertain the functionality of these valves. Other imaging modalities such as multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) are now widely available, which can accurately size aortic valve annuli. This may help reduce the incidence of paravalvular leaks and regurgitation which may necessitate further intervention. Structural valve degeneration (SVD) remains a key factor, with varying results from current studies. The true incidence of SVD in TAVI compared to SAVR remains unclear due to the lack of long-term data. It is now widely accepted that both are part of the armamentarium and are not mutually exclusive. Decision making in terms of appropriate interventions should be undertaken via shared decision making involving heart teams.