BACKGROUND:Echocardiography has been debated as an adjunct for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The aim of this prospective study was to comparatively evaluate intraprocedural guidance using intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). METHODS:Fifty high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis scheduled for TAVR were randomized to either guidance using ICE (group 1; n = 25) or monitoring using TEE (group 2; n = 25). RESULTS: In contrast to TEE, ICE allowed continuous monitoring. The need for probe repositioning during the procedure was much lower in group 1 (0.1 ± 0.3 vs 5.7 ± 0.7 maneuvers, P < .001). Compared with TEE, the transcaval intracardiac echocardiographic view provided higher coaxiality with the ascending aorta expressed as the length of ascending aorta depicted (4.9 ± 1.2 vs 6.1 ± 1.2 cm, P = .003). Both coronary ostia were more frequently visualized in group 1 (18 vs 2 cases, P < .001). ICE-derived annular measurements were correlated closely with preinterventional readings on TEE (n = 25, r(2) = 0.90, P < .001). TEE underestimated intraprocedural pressure gradients in comparison with preinterventional measurements (mean difference, -10.2 ± 11.1 mm Hg; n = 11, P = .012), but ICE did not (mean difference, -0.3 ± 14.1 mm Hg; n = 25, P = .913). ICE and TEE detected newly grown thrombi (2 vs 1 case). Severe complications (e.g., annular dissection, pericardial effusion) were not observed. CONCLUSIONS:ICE, which is compatible with sedation and local anesthesia, can be considered an alternative to TEE for intraprocedural guidance during TAVR. It also seems to match the required work flow during TAVR better than TEE.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Echocardiography has been debated as an adjunct for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The aim of this prospective study was to comparatively evaluate intraprocedural guidance using intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). METHODS: Fifty high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis scheduled for TAVR were randomized to either guidance using ICE (group 1; n = 25) or monitoring using TEE (group 2; n = 25). RESULTS: In contrast to TEE, ICE allowed continuous monitoring. The need for probe repositioning during the procedure was much lower in group 1 (0.1 ± 0.3 vs 5.7 ± 0.7 maneuvers, P < .001). Compared with TEE, the transcaval intracardiac echocardiographic view provided higher coaxiality with the ascending aorta expressed as the length of ascending aorta depicted (4.9 ± 1.2 vs 6.1 ± 1.2 cm, P = .003). Both coronary ostia were more frequently visualized in group 1 (18 vs 2 cases, P < .001). ICE-derived annular measurements were correlated closely with preinterventional readings on TEE (n = 25, r(2) = 0.90, P < .001). TEE underestimated intraprocedural pressure gradients in comparison with preinterventional measurements (mean difference, -10.2 ± 11.1 mm Hg; n = 11, P = .012), but ICE did not (mean difference, -0.3 ± 14.1 mm Hg; n = 25, P = .913). ICE and TEE detected newly grown thrombi (2 vs 1 case). Severe complications (e.g., annular dissection, pericardial effusion) were not observed. CONCLUSIONS:ICE, which is compatible with sedation and local anesthesia, can be considered an alternative to TEE for intraprocedural guidance during TAVR. It also seems to match the required work flow during TAVR better than TEE.
Authors: Wendy Whiteside; Sara K Pasquali; Sunkyung Yu; Martin L Bocks; Jeffrey D Zampi; Aimee K Armstrong Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 1.655