Radiation Exposure During Transcatheter Valve Replacement: What Cardiac Surgeons Need to Know.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and transcatheter mitral valve replacement expose operators to radiation. These procedures differ primarily in whether they are performed via a transfemoral (TF) or an alternative access (AA) approach. This study compared operator radiation exposure during transcatheter valve implantation when performed via a TF vs an AA approach, when performed in a catheterization lab vs a hybrid operating room (OR), and investigated the potential benefit of disposable shielding. METHODS: Dosimeters were worn during TAVR-TF (n = 50) and TAVR-AA (n = 31) procedures by operators. All TAVR-AA procedures were performed in a hybrid OR and TF procedures were performed in either catheterization labs (n = 16) or a hybrid OR (n = 34). Disposable radiation shielding pads (RADPAD; Worldwide Innovations and Technologies, Inc, Kansas City) or a placebo were added in a randomized, blinded fashion. RESULTS: Team radiation exposure was higher after TAVR-AA vs TAVR-TF (median 15.1 mRad [interquartile range: IQR 8.6, 32.4] vs 5.5 mRad [IQR 2.4, 9.8], P < .001). TAVR-TF procedures required the same amount of fluoroscopy time regardless of where they were performed (20.3 ± 7.4 min in hybrid OR vs 19.0 ± 6.4 min in catheterization lab, P = .55). However, radiation exposure for TAVR-TF remained higher when performed in a hybrid OR (median 9.0 mRad [IQR 4.5, 11.9] vs 2.2 mRad [IQR 1.3, 2.8], P < .001). Radiation exposure was greatest for TAVR-AA (median 15.1 mRad [IQR 8.6, 32.4]). The use of RADPAD did not decrease radiation exposure (median 9.0 mRad [IQR 4.5, 14.7] vs 9.4 mRad [IQR 2.8, 19.5], P = .82). CONCLUSIONS: Procedures performed in the hybrid OR were associated with higher operator radiation exposure. In comparison with the TF approach, AA cases had the highest levels of operator radiation. This is particularly important in cases of transcatheter mitral valve replacement that can only be done via an AA approach. The use of disposable radiation shielding in this series did not attenuate operator radiation exposure. Radiation shielding within hybrid ORs should be scrutinized in an effort to remain on par with that found within catheterization labs.

Diffuse cardiac fibrosis quantification in early systemic sclerosis by magnetic resonance imaging and correlation with skin fibrosis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) T1 mapping in early systemic sclerosis (SSc) and its association with skin score. METHODS: Twenty-four consecutive patients with early SSc referred for cardiovascular evaluation and 12 controls without SSc were evaluated. All patients underwent cine, T1 mapping, and late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) CMR imaging. T1 mapping indices were compared between SSc patients and controls (extracellular volume fraction [ECV], gadolinium partition coefficient [λ], pre-contrast T1, and post-contrast T1). The association between T1 mapping parameters and the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) was determined. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in cardiac structure/function between SSc patients and controls on cine imaging, and 8/24 (33%) SSc patients had evidence of LGE (i.e., focal myocardial fibrosis). Of the T1 mapping parameters (indices indicative of diffuse myocardial fibrosis), ECV differentiated SSc patients from controls the best, followed by λ, even when the eight SSc patients with LGE were excluded. ECV had a sensitivity and specificity of 75% and 75% for diffuse myocardial fibrosis (optimal abnormal cut-off value of >27% [area under ROC curve=0.85]). In the 16 patients without evidence of LGE, each of the 4 CMR T1 mapping parameters (ECV, λ, Pre-T1 and Post-T1) correlated with mRSS (R=0.51-0.65, P=0.007-0.043), indicating a correlation between SSc cardiac and skin fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: The four T1 mapping indices are significantly correlated with mRSS in patients with early SSc. Quantification of diffuse myocardial fibrosis using ECV should be considered as a marker for cardiac involvement in SSc clinical studies.

Prognostic utility of novel biomarkers of cardiovascular stress in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: In heart failure populations without aortic stenosis (AS), the prognostic utility of multiple biomarkers in addition to clinical factors has been demonstrated. We aimed to determine whether multiple biomarkers of cardiovascular stress are associated with mortality in patients with AS undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) independent of clinical factors. METHODS: From a prospective registry of patients with AS, 345 participants who were referred for and treated with AVR (transcatheter (n=183) or surgical (n=162)) were included. Eight biomarkers were measured on blood samples obtained prior to AVR: growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15), soluble ST2 (sST2), amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP), galectin-3, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, myeloperoxidase, high-sensitivity C reactive protein and monocyte chemotactic protein-1. Biomarkers were evaluated based on median value (high vs low) in a Cox proportional hazards model for all-cause mortality and a parsimonious group of biomarkers selected. Mean follow-up was 1.9±1.2 years; 91 patients died. RESULTS: Three biomarkers (GDF15, sST2 and NTproBNP) were retained in the model. One-year mortality was 5%, 12%, 18% and 33% for patients with 0 (n=79), 1 (n=96), 2 (n=87) and 3 (n=83) biomarkers elevated, respectively (p<0.001). After adjustment for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score, a greater number of elevated biomarkers was associated with increased mortality (referent: 0 elevated): 1 elevated (HR 1.47, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.63, p=0.40), 2 elevated (HR 2.89, 95% CI 1.24 to 6.74, p=0.014) and 3 elevated (HR 4.59, 95% CI 1.97 to 10.71, p<0.001). Among patients at intermediate or high surgical risk (STS score ≥4), 1-year and 2-year mortality rates were 34% and 43% for patients with three biomarkers elevated versus 4% and 4% for patients with 0 biomarkers elevated. When added to the STS score, the number of biomarkers elevated provided a category-free net reclassification improvement of 64% at 1 year (p<0.001). The association between a greater number of elevated biomarkers and increased mortality after valve replacement was similar in the transcatheter and surgical AVR populations. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the potential utility of multiple biomarkers to aid in risk stratification of patients with AS. Further studies are needed to evaluate their utility in clinical decision-making in specific AS populations.