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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.