Aortic root remodeling after transcatheter aortic valve impantation: Evaluation by computed tomography

2012 ◽  
Vol 60 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
SM Ensminger ◽  
M Arnold ◽  
J Ludwig ◽  
R Feyrer ◽  
S Gauss ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 59 (13) ◽  
pp. E1196
Author(s):  
Stephan Achenbach ◽  
Martin Arnold ◽  
Josef Ludwig ◽  
Richard Feyrer ◽  
Annika Schuhbaeck ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
G Granata ◽  
A Veltri ◽  
S Iuliano ◽  
V Romano ◽  
S Stella ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Accurate imaging assessment of the aortic root (AR) is critical for prosthesis sizing in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Multislice computed tomography (MSCT) is the gold standard for this purpose. 3D transesophageal (3D-TOE) reconstruction tools have recently been introduced, which automatically configures a geometric model of AR from 3D-TOE dataset and perform quantitative analyses of the AR. Purpose The aim of the study was to compare semi-automated measurements of AR obtained by eSie Valves (EV) (Siemens Medical Solution, California, USA) tool with MSCT. Methods We prospectively enrolled 26 consecutive patients (mean age 79.5 ± 7.5 years; 38% men) with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (mean gradient 48.8± 13.6 mmHg) who underwent both 3D-TOE and MSCT as part of TAVI evaluation protocol. Volumetric datasets of the AR, acquired with 3D-TOE in mid-esophageal view, were analyzed with EV tool. EV tool automatically detected AR landmarks and, after user validation, created 3D model of AR providing values of area, perimeter, diameters of aortic annulus (AA) and coronary ostia heights (Fig 1). Results EV tool analysis on 3D-TOE volumetric data sets was feasible in all patients. Strong correlation between EV tool and MSCT assessment for AA major diameter (r = 0.79), AA minor diameter (r = 0.81), AA perimeter (r = 0.89) and AA area (r = 0.89) (all p< 0.0001) was found. On average EV tool underestimated MSCT measurements of AA major diameter (1.2 mm, 4.5%), AA minor diameter (2.6 mm, 11.3%), AA perimeter (4 mm, 5.2%) and AA area (65.3 mmq, 13.6%). Moderate correlation between the two methods, already in this initial sample, for right coronary artery ostium height (r = 0.53, p = 0.007) was discovered. Finally, weak correlation for left coronary artery ostium height (r = 0.33, p = 0.1) was revealed. EV tool measurements from two different volumetric datasets of the same patient showed an excellent reproducibility intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for AA area 0.94 and ICC for right coronary height 0.98. Conclusion With these initial results EV tool could be used in clinical practice for quick and reliable assessment of AA area, perimeter and diameters. A larger group of patients will be needed to assess the consistency of coronary ostia height evaluation by EV tool. Abstract P218 Figure. eSie Valve landmarks and 3D model of AR


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Gansera ◽  
Bernhard Ulm ◽  
Peter Bramlage ◽  
Stephan Krapf ◽  
Frank Oertel ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives We aimed to investigate whether conventional aortic root angiography (CA) alone can reliably facilitate valve selection, and to describe its inter-reader variability. Background The gold standard approach to prosthesis sizing before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT). Methods Five TAVI specialists (three interventional cardiologists and two cardiac surgeons) independently reviewed pre-procedural CAs for 50 patients implanted with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve. Results The prosthesis size selected based on visual CA appraisal matched that based on MSCT in 60% of cases (range: 50–68%), with undersizing in 11% (4–33%) and oversizing in 29% (10–46%; p=0.187 for equality of proportions test). Agreement between CA-based and MSCT-based valve selection was moderate (K=0.41; Kw=0.61). Reassessment of choice following awareness of the annulus long-axis diameter did not significantly improve this agreement (0.40 and 0.63, respectively), though more undersizing (14%) and less oversizing (25%) occurred. Correct valve selection was more common in interventional cardiologists than cardiac surgeons (66% vs. 53%; p=0.0391), who made more oversizing errors. Conclusions There is modest agreement between CA-based and MSCT-based SAPIEN 3 selection. While the former should not be performed routinely, it may be informative in settings where MSCT and transesophageal echocardiography are unavailable.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document