Multicentre medicoeconomic evaluation of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for predicting coronary artery disease in left ventricular dysfunction: The CAMAREC study design.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging may provide a non-invasive alternative to coronary angiography for differentiating between ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy in cases of unexplained reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. AIM: The CAMAREC study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in predicting significant coronary artery disease in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, using coronary angiography as the gold standard for comparison. METHODS: CAMAREC is a prospective cohort study of 406 patients in 10 centres with newly diagnosed, unexplained left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 45%. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and coronary angiography will be conducted within a 2-week interval, starting with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; independent committees will review the results blindly. Primary outcome is sensitivity of detecting ischaemic scar on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for predicting significant coronary artery disease on coronary angiography according to Felker's criteria. Secondary outcomes include specificity and positive and negative predictive values (with 95% confidence intervals) of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for predicting significant coronary artery disease in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, kappa concordance coefficient between cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and coronary angiography for diagnosing the affected myocardial territory, and the impact of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging on revascularization decisions. Two ancillary studies will evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging first versus coronary angiography first, and the sensitivity of pre- and postcontrast T1-mapping for predicting significant coronary artery disease in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. CONCLUSION: Our study protocol is designed to rigorously evaluate cardiac magnetic resonance imaging as a non-invasive alternative to coronary angiography in patients with unexplained reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. The results will have significant implications for patient management, and may support growing evidence for the clinical utility of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Minimalist Management of Occlusive Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection With Workhorse Guidewire: The Prick-and-Wait Technique.

We describe what could be a bailout strategy in the event of (1) failure to reach the distal true lumen, (2) slight improvement in the distal flow, but allowing clinical resolution of STEMI, or (3) a situation not suited to surgery. The "prick-and-wait" technique presented in this case led to a complete recovery.

Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance May Avoid Unnecessary Coronary Angiography in Patients With Unexplained Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: A Retrospective Diagnostic Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronary angiography (CA) is usually performed in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to search ischemic cardiomyopathy. Our aim was to examine the agreement between CA and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging among a cohort of patients with unexplained reduced LVEF, and estimate what would have been the consequences of using CMR imaging as the first-line examination. METHODS: Three hundred five patients with unexplained reduced LVEF of ≤45% who underwent both CA and CMR imaging were retrospectively registered. Patients were classified as CMR+ or CMR- according to presence or absence of myocardial ischemic scar, and classified CA+ or CA- according to presence or absence of significant coronary artery disease. RESULTS: CMR+ (n = 89) included all 54 CA+ patients, except 2 with distal coronary artery disease in whom no revascularization was proposed. Among the 247 CA- patients, 15% were CMR+. CMR imaging had 96% sensitivity, 85% specificity, 99% negative predictive value, and 58% positive predictive value for detecting CA+ patients. Revascularization was performed in 6.5% of the patients (all CMR+). Performing CA only for CMR+ patients would have decreased the number of CAs by 71%. CONCLUSIONS: In reduced LVEF, performing CA only in CMR+ patients may significantly decrease the number of unnecessary CAs performed, without missing any patients requiring revascularization.

Aortic valve anatomy and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valves.

This original clinical research study id focused on description of baseline anatomy and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients presenting with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). We compared this BAV population with a population of patients with AS and tricuspid aortic valves after a propensity score matching developed by a multivariate logistic regression according to a non-parsimonious approach. Baseline anatomical characteristics were obtained by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and multi-sliced computed tomography (MSCT) and compared by chi-square and t-student tests. Outcomes were evaluated by correct fisher test at in hospital and 30 days follow-up. We found that BAV patients presents more complicated baseline anatomy as compared to patients with tricuspid valves. These anatomical features lead to higher procedural complications as the need for a second device implantation. However this does not translate into increase in mortality rate at 30 days follow-up but rather correlate to a lower device success rate.