Zero-contrast imaging for the assessment of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in candidates with renal dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are currently evaluated using computed tomography angiography and invasive cardiac catheterization as an essential part of case selection and pre-procedure interventional planning. However, both imaging methods utilize iodinated agents, which may cause contrast-induced nephropathy, particularly in patients with baseline renal dysfunction. This study aimed to describe a zero-contrast imaging protocol for pre-TAVI evaluation in patients with advanced renal impairment. METHODS: The pre-TAVI zero-contrast scheme consisted of the following multi-modality combinations: (1) gadolinium-free magnetic resonance imaging (three-dimensional navigator-echo with electrocardiogram-gated steady-state free-precession series); (2) iodinated-free multislice computed tomography electrocardiogram-gated; (3) lower limb arterial duplex scan ultrasound; and (4) transesophageal echocardiography. Ultimately, TAVI was performed for those deemed good candidates, and contrast was allowed during the intervention; however, operators were strongly advised to utilize the least volume possible of iodinated agents. This pilot survey included ten patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis and renal dysfunction who underwent zero-contrast multi-modality imaging. RESULTS: All the patients ultimately underwent TAVI. The intervention was successful in all cases, without ≥ moderate residual aortic regurgitation, prosthesis embolization, annulus rupture, major vascular complications, stroke, or death during index hospitalization. The creatinine clearance remained stable throughout the observation period (baseline: 26.85 ± 12.55 mL/min; after multi-modality imaging: 26.76 ± 11.51 mL/min; post-TAVI at discharge: 29.84 ± 13.98 mL/min; p = 0.3 all). CONCLUSION: The proposed contrast-free imaging protocol appears to be a promising clinical tool for pre-TAVI evaluation in patients with severe renal dysfunction.

Safety and effectiveness of introducing a robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention program in a tertiary center: a prospective study.

Background: Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a novel technology that permits remote operation of interventional devices. However, little is known about the safety and effectiveness of introducing a robotic PCI program in a hospital already experienced in traditional coronary angioplasty. Methods: Prospective single-arm survey to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted PCI in comparison to pre-defined performance goals. The study cohort comprised all consecutive cases treated with robotic PCI since its introduction. The safety primary endpoint was a composite of (I) overall death or (II) non-fatal adverse events related to target vessel complications (stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, vessel perforation or cardiac tamponade, or repeat invasive treatment) during the index hospitalization. The efficacy primary endpoint was robotic-assisted procedural success, a composite of (I) successful dilatation of the target lesion and (II) successful robotic assistance, defined as absent non-planned manual conversion. Results: A total of 83 patients and 112 lesions were prospectively enrolled. The rate of angiographic success was 99.1%. From these, 97 lesions (86.6%) were treated with only robotic PCI or with hybrid according to the pre-interventional plan. The rates of efficacy and safety primary endpoints were 85.7% and 2.4% respectively (P<0.01 for non-inferior to the pre-defined performance threshold). Conclusions: Introduction of robotic-assisted PCI in a tertiary center was associated with safe and effective results, comparable to pre-defined goals of optimal performance.

Multimethod to prioritize projects evaluated in different formats.

The prioritization of Research, Development & Innovation Projects is an essential step in the innovation management process. As a rule, it is carried out applying methods that allow one to process experts' preferences concerning each project according to established criteria. However, there are different preference formats which experts can utilize: Ordering of Alternatives, Utility Values, Multiplicative Preference Relations, Fuzzy Estimates, Fuzzy Preference Relations, etc. Wherein, each prioritization method usually handles only one of these formats. Thus, the following question arises: how do we prioritize projects taken from portfolios evaluated in different formats? The proposed methodology presents a way to overcome this gap by achieving three main objectives. First, develop techniques that make it possible to crossover between preference formats and prioritization methods. Second, merge two portfolios of projects built applying different prioritization methods. Third, prioritize projects evaluated using different formats. The results of this study are universal and can be applied to replace any method of prioritization. In the specific case, the Mapping method is replaced by the Analytic Hierarchy Process and, then, by the Interactive Multicriteria Decision Making method (so called TODIM method). Techniques are also proposed to ensure compatibility between different preference formats and prioritization methods.•Prioritization of projects evaluated in different formats using the Mapping, AHP, and TODIM methods.•Providing fully consistent evaluation matrices.•Application of techniques to make different preference formats and prioritization methods compatible.