BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to test a CE-certified MR-conditional guidewire to facilitate blood pressure measurement in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) using fluid-filled catheters in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). The main purpose was to determine procedural success in a post market clinical follow-up (PMCF) for routine procedure in a diagnostic and interventional workflow. Real-time CMR provides high quality imaging without the risk of exposing the patient to X-rays, especially for patients with irregular heart anatomy and patients who are susceptible to radiation and iodinated contrast media. To date, the assessment of blood pressure gradients is not a common feature of CMR, as these gradients cannot be accurately evaluated in routine CMR. METHODS: Twenty-five CHD patients who were planned for combined clinical CMR and diagnostic and/or interventional catheterization were enrolled in the trial. Prior to inclusion, a specific procedure for catheterization in CMR was defined, encompassing the assessment of pressure and pressure gradients in the heart and great vessels. RESULTS: By the use of an MR-conditional guidewire we successfully measured specific pressure and pressure gradients in up to 92% of cases with liquid-filled catheters which were guided exclusively under CMR guidance. There were no guidewire-related adverse events, and guidewire guidance and manipulation of catheters were successful. CONCLUSIONS: Using a MR-conditional guidewire assists in easily reaching targets in the heart and great vessels and makes the catheter itself visible, so that invasive blood pressure assessment by CMR guidance with liquid-filled catheters can be improved. KEYWORDS: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR); congenital heart disease (CHD); cardiac catheterization; magnetic resonance; pressure; guidewire. 2021 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to test a CE-certified MR-conditional guidewire to facilitate blood pressure measurement in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) using fluid-filled catheters in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). The main purpose was to determine procedural success in a post market clinical follow-up (PMCF) for routine procedure in a diagnostic and interventional workflow. Real-time CMR provides high quality imaging without the risk of exposing the patient to X-rays, especially for patients with irregular heart anatomy and patients who are susceptible to radiation and iodinated contrast media. To date, the assessment of blood pressure gradients is not a common feature of CMR, as these gradients cannot be accurately evaluated in routine CMR. METHODS: Twenty-five CHD patients who were planned for combined clinical CMR and diagnostic and/or interventional catheterization were enrolled in the trial. Prior to inclusion, a specific procedure for catheterization in CMR was defined, encompassing the assessment of pressure and pressure gradients in the heart and great vessels. RESULTS: By the use of an MR-conditional guidewire we successfully measured specific pressure and pressure gradients in up to 92% of cases with liquid-filled catheters which were guided exclusively under CMR guidance. There were no guidewire-related adverse events, and guidewire guidance and manipulation of catheters were successful. CONCLUSIONS: Using a MR-conditional guidewire assists in easily reaching targets in the heart and great vessels and makes the catheter itself visible, so that invasive blood pressure assessment by CMR guidance with liquid-filled catheters can be improved. KEYWORDS: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR); congenital heart disease (CHD); cardiac catheterization; magnetic resonance; pressure; guidewire. 2021 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Authors: Sebastian Kos; Rolf Huegli; Eugen Hofmann; Harald H Quick; Hilmar Kuehl; Stephanie Aker; Gernot M Kaiser; Paul J A Borm; Augustinus L Jacob; Deniz Bilecen Journal: Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.442
Authors: Sascha Krueger; Sebastian Schmitz; Steffen Weiss; Daniel Wirtz; Marita Linssen; Heinz Schade; Nils Kraemer; Elmar Spuentrup; Gabriele Krombach; Arno Buecker Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Adrienne E Campbell-Washburn; Rajiv Ramasawmy; Matthew C Restivo; Ipshita Bhattacharya; Burcu Basar; Daniel A Herzka; Michael S Hansen; Toby Rogers; W Patricia Bandettini; Delaney R McGuirt; Christine Mancini; David Grodzki; Rainer Schneider; Waqas Majeed; Himanshu Bhat; Hui Xue; Joel Moss; Ashkan A Malayeri; Elizabeth C Jones; Alan P Koretsky; Peter Kellman; Marcus Y Chen; Robert J Lederman; Robert S Balaban Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Martin A Rube; Fabiola Fernandez-Gutierrez; Benjamin F Cox; Andrew B Holbrook; J Graeme Houston; Richard D White; Helen McLeod; Mahsa Fatahi; Andreas Melzer Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2014-08-08 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Philip J Kilner; Tal Geva; Harald Kaemmerer; Pedro T Trindade; Juerg Schwitter; Gary D Webb Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Sophie C Rier; Suzan Vreemann; Wouter H Nijhof; Vincent J H M van Driel; Ivo A C van der Bilt Journal: Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2022 Jan-Dec