Current cardiac imaging techniques for detection of left ventricular mass

Estimation of left ventricular (LV) mass has both prognostic and therapeutic value independent of traditional risk factors. Unfortunately, LV mass evaluation has been underestimated in clinical practice. Assessment of LV mass can be performed by a number of imaging modalities. Despite inherent limitations, conventional echocardiography has fundamentally been established as most widely used diagnostic tool. 3-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) is now feasible, fast and accurate for LV mass evaluation. 3DE is also superior to conventional echocardiography in terms of LV mass assessment, especially in patients with abnormal LV geometry. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and cardiovascular computed tomography (CCT) are currently performed for LV mass assessment and also do not depend on cardiac geometry and display 3-dimensional data, as well. Therefore, CMR is being increasingly employed and is at the present standard of reference in the clinical setting. Although each method demonstrates advantages over another, there are also disadvantages to receive attention. Diagnostic accuracy of methods will also be increased with the introduction of more advanced systems. It is also likely that in the coming years new and more accurate diagnostic tests will become available. In particular, CMR and CCT have been intersecting hot topic between cardiology and radiology clinics. Thus, good communication and collaboration between two specialties is required for selection of an appropriate test

Meta‐analysis comparing valve‐in‐valve TAVR

Introduction: The comparative efficacy and safety of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo-surgical AVR (redo-SAVR) in patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves remain unknown. Method: Digital databases were searched to identify relevant articles. Unadjusted odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes were calculated using a random effect model. A total of 11 studies comprising 8326 patients (ViV-TAVR = 4083 and redo-SAVR = 4243) were included. Results: The mean age of patients undergoing ViV-TAVR was older, 76 years compared to 73 years for those undergoing SAVR. The baseline characteristics for patients in ViV-TAVR vs. redo-SAVR groups were comparable. At 30-days, the odds of all-cause mortality (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30–0.68, p =.0002), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26–0.73, p =.001) and major bleeding (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15–0.54, p =.0001) were significantly lower in patients undergoing ViV-TAVR compared to redo-SAVR. There were no significant differences in the odds of cerebrovascular accidents (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.52–1.58, p =.74), myocardial infarction (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44–1.92, p =.83) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM) (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.27–1.07, p =.08) between the two groups. During mid to long-term follow up (6-months to 5-years), there were no significant differences between ViV-TAVR and redo-SAVR for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and stroke. ViV-TAVR was, however, associated with higher risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch and greater transvalvular pressure gradient post-implantation. Conclusion: ViV-TAVR compared to redo-SAVR appears to be associated with significant improvement in short term mortality and major bleeding. For mid to long-term follow up, the outcomes were similar for both groups