Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27091735›Full record

Trial reportThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2016

Use of short roll C-arm computed tomography and fully automated 3D analysis tools to guide transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Michael S Kim, John Bracken, Peter Eshuis, S Y James Chen, David Fullerton, Joseph Cleveland, John C Messenger, John D Carroll

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Michael S KimUniversity of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus, 12401 East 17th Avenue, B-132, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. michael.kim@ucdenver.edu.
John BrackenPhilips Healthcare, Markham, ON, Canada.
Peter EshuisPhilips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands.
S Y James ChenUniversity of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus, 12401 East 17th Avenue, B-132, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.
David FullertonUniversity of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus, 12401 East 17th Avenue, B-132, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.
Joseph ClevelandUniversity of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus, 12401 East 17th Avenue, B-132, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.
John C MessengerUniversity of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus, 12401 East 17th Avenue, B-132, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.
John D CarrollUniversity of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus, 12401 East 17th Avenue, B-132, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · USPhilips (Canada) · CAPhilips (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determination of the coplanar view is a critical component of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The safety and accuracy of a novel reduced angular range C-arm computed tomography (CACT) approach coupled with a fully automated 3D analysis tool package to predict the coplanar view in TAVR was evaluated. Fifty-seven patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis deemed prohibitive-risk for surgery and who underwent TAVR were enrolled. Patients were randomized 2:1 to CACT vs. angiography (control) in estimating the coplanar view. These approaches to determine the coplanar view were compared quantitatively. Radiation doses needed to determine the coplanar view were recorded for both the CACT and control patients. Use of CACT offered good agreement with the actual angiographic view utilized during TAVR in 34 out of 41 cases in which a CACT scan was performed (83 %). For these 34 cases, the mean angular magnitude difference, taking into account both oblique and cranial/caudal angulation, was 1.3° ± 0.4°, while the maximum difference was 7.3°. There were no significant differences in the mean total radiation dose delivered to patients between the CACT and control groups as measured by either dose area product (207.8 ± 15.2 Gy cm(2) vs. 186.1 ± 25.3 Gy cm(2), P = 0.47) or air kerma (1287.6 ± 117.7 mGy vs. 1098.9 ± 143.8 mGy, P = 0.32). Use of reduced-angular range CACT coupled with fully automated 3D analysis tools is a safe, practical, and feasible method by which to determine the optimal angiographic deployment view for guiding TAVR procedures.

Indexed as

Computed Tomography AngiographyImaging, Three-DimensionalMultidetector Computed TomographyAortic ValveAortic Valve StenosisAortographyAutomationCardiac CatheterizationHeart Valve ProsthesisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHumansPredictive Value of TestsRadiation DosageRadiation ExposureRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRadiography, InterventionalC-arm computed tomographyCoplanar viewImage guidanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacementX-ray aortography

Identifiers

PMID27091735
OpenAlexW2337137122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.