Interventional Cardiology - Группа авторов

Скачать книгу

after PCI for LM STEMI is recommended [30] and CTA is considered appropriate for this purpose [31].

      Chronic total occlusion (CTO)

      Successful revascularization of CTOs continues to be one of the more challenging procedures in cardiology. CTA has the advantage of better characterizing certain key features such as tortuosity of vessels, ostial lesions, and length of occluded segments. Several studies have demonstrated that specific CT findings and CT‐based scores can predict failure of CTO PCI [32]. While more data is required, CTA has the potential to play a key role in planning CTO revascularization procedures in the coming years.

      Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)

      CTA has been shown to be accurate in evaluating venous and arterial bypass grafts because they have a larger diameter and little calcification (Figure 10.1c–d). The challenge lies in evaluating the native coronaries, which are typically severely calcified in post‐CABG patients. Jungman et al. [33] reviewed 13 studies that assessed bypass grafts for stenosis of more than 50% and found that the sensitivity and specificity of CTA approached nearly 100%. This included two studies that used 265‐slice and 320‐slice CT, which were found to have similar accuracy to 64‐slice CT. The advantage of the newer scanners was the reduction in radiation dose. The study did reiterate though, that the sensitivity and specificity for evaluating native coronaries was lower. Currently, it is considered appropriate to use CTA for evaluation of graft patency in patients with ischemic symptoms [24]. Interestingly, a recent study showed that in patients with left main or triple‐vessel disease, the heart team management strategy based on CTA alone was in agreement with that made by ICA – suggesting that future decisions regarding revascularization strategy could possibly be based on CTA findings alone [34].

      CTA has been proven to have high NPV and can be used safely to rule out acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to expedite discharge in low to intermediate risk patients presenting with acute chest pain [1] [35–40]. The use of CTA as the initial screening test for CAD has remained somewhat controversial due to its tendency to overestimate disease severity. Two large trials of symptomatic patients referred for CAD evaluation are the PROMISE and the SCOT‐HEART trials [41, 42]. The PROMISE trial randomized symptomatic patients to CTA testing or functional testing and found no significant difference in clinical outcomes (composite of death, MI hospitalization for unstable angina or major procedural complication) over a median period of two years. The SCOTHEART trial randomized patients to standard care plus CCTA or standard care alone and at 5 years, found a significantly lower rate of death from coronary heart disease or myocardial infarction in the CCTA group. There was an initial increase in the rate of procedures in the CCTA group but there was no difference between the two groups at the end of five years. The authors concluded that since CTA was shown to be more accurate in diagnosing coronary obstruction in both SCOTHEART and PROMISE, their results implied that PCIs were more appropriately performed in the CCTA group. Additionally, SCOTHEART encouraged initiation of secondary prevention strategies in patients with non‐obstructive disease and the proportion of patients receiving this was higher in the CTA group because of lack of recognition in the usual care group. The 5‐year outcomes of the SCOTHEART trial are very encouraging with regards to the use of CCTA in the assessment of stable ischemic heart disease. On account of its high sensitivity and cost‐effectiveness, the updated 2016 NICE guidelines [43] now recommend the use of coronary CT as the initial screening test for all patients with stable angina. Additionally, a recent trial randomized patients presenting with NSTEMI to an initial ICA, CMR or CTA strategy and found that while fewer procedures occurred in the latter two groups with unchanged one‐year clinical outcomes – implying that CTA or CMR could possibly serve as gatekeepers to ICA in low‐risk NSTEMI as well [44].

      CT FFR

      Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) on ICA is the gold standard for hemodynamic assessment of coronary lesions. CT FFR is a technology that uses computational fluid dynamics to calculate FFR non‐invasively. It provides a combination of anatomic and functional information that helps identify high‐risk plaque and accurately determine the severity of coronary stenosis. Several studies have evaluated the accuracy of CT FFR. The NXT trial [45] found that CT FFR calculated on 254 patients with predominantly intermediate stenosis (30–70%) had high accuracy compared to invasive FFR and that the specificity of CT FFR was higher than CCTA alone. In the PLATFORM study [46], symptomatic patients with intermediate pre‐test probability were divided into non‐invasive and invasive groups and consecutive cohorts in each group were evaluated with usual care or CT FFR. In the invasive group, CT FFR led to a significant reduction in costs with a similar rate of revascularization and change in Quality of Life (QOL) scores. In the non‐invasive group, the CT FFR cohort had a significantly higher improvement in QOL scores. With the incorporation of CT FFR in routine testing, we can expect to see the use of coronary CT continue to expand.

      TAVR

      Pulmonary vein ablation

      Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has emerged as a useful non‐invasive tool for the assessment of cardiovascular morphology and function in the absence of ionizing radiation. It has imaging sequences that can be manipulated to generate varying degrees of soft‐tissue contrast for cardiac tissue characterization. Additionally, the excellent spatial (1–2 mm in‐plane resolution), temporal (50ms or better), and contrast resolutions

Скачать книгу