Phase contrast cardiac magnetic resonance imaging versus transoesophageal echocardiography for the evaluation of feasibility for transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects

Abstract

Background: This prospective study was aimed at comparing phase contrast cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (PC-CMR) with 2D transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for determining potential candidature for transcatheter closure in ostium secundum ASD (OS-ASD) patients. We included consecutive adult patients with OS-ASD for the evaluation of feasibility for transcatheter closure using 2D-TEE and PC-CMR over a period of 2 years. Patients who fulfilled the conventional criteria for transcatheter closure, i.e. maximum ASD diameter ≤ 34 mm, adequate rims (≥ 5 mm, except for anterosuperior rim), and normal pulmonary venous drainage on both imaging modalities, were taken for device closure. In patients where there was discrepancy in the measurements of ASD diameter or rim size, making them eligible for device closure on one imaging modality and ineligible on the other hand, provisional device closure was attempted. All patients who underwent transcatheter closure were followed up to 6 months to rule out any complications. Results: A total of 58 patients (mean age 35.93 ± 10.59 years) were enrolled in the study. Overall, there was significant positive correlation between 2D-TEE and CMR measurements of maximal ASD diameter and rim size (p < 0.001). However, TEE significantly underestimated maximal ASD diameter and posteroinferior rim size in comparison with CMR (p = 0.013 and p = 0.023, respectively). 46 (79.3%) patients were suitable for transcatheter closure on CMR, while 44 (75.9%) were eligible on TEE. Transcatheter closure was attempted in 48 patients based on imaging findings and was successful in 46 (95.8%) patients. Device closure was unsuccessful in 2 patients with defect size < 34 mm on TEE but > 34 mm on CMR. Among 7 patients with deficient posteroinferior rim on TEE, 5 had sufficient rim on CMR and underwent successful transcatheter closure. CMR detected anomalous pulmonary venous drainage in one patient which was missed on TEE, hence excluding the patient from transcatheter closure. Mean device size was 28.3 ± 7.4 mm and correlated more strongly with the defect dimensions on PC-CMR (r = 0.85, p < 0.001) compared to TEE (r = 0.71, p = 0.02). Conclusions: PC-CMR may to be superior to 2D-TEE for the preprocedural planning and feasibility assessment for transcatheter closure in adult patients with ostium secundum ASD.