AIMS: Different two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) imaging techniques are used for procedure planning and selection of prosthesis size before transcatheter aortic valve implantation. This study sought to compare different 2D and 3D imaging techniques and determine the accuracy of 3D transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for accurate analysis of aortic annulus dimensions. METHODS: In 49 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation angiography, 2D transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), 2D and 3D TEE, and dual-source CT (DSCT) were performed to determine aortic annulus diameters. TTE and 2D TEE provided only one diameter of the aortic annulus. Angiography, DSCT and 3D TEE allowed measurement of diameters in sagittal and coronal views. The distance between aortic annulus and left main coronary artery ostium was measured by angiography, DSCT and 3D TEE. RESULTS: Sagittal diameters determined by angiography, TTE, 2D TEE, 3D TEE and DSCT were smaller than coronal diameters determined by angiography, 3D TEE and DSCT. Coronal and sagittal diameters determined by 3D TEE were in high agreement with corresponding measurements by DSCT (23.60±1.89 vs 23.46±2.07 mm and 22.19±1.96 vs 22.27±2.01 mm, respectively; mean±SD). There was a high correlation between DSCT and 3D TEE for the definition of coronal and sagittal aortic annulus diameters (r=0.88, SEE=0.89 mm and r=0.77, SEE=1.26 mm, respectively). Correlation of 3D TEE (13.47±1.67 mm) and DSCT (13.64±1.82 mm) in the analysis of the distance between aortic annulus and left main coronary artery ostium was better (r=0.54, SEE=1.55 mm) than between angiography (14.85±3.84 mm) and DSCT (r=0.35, SEE=1.77 mm). CONCLUSIONS: 3D imaging techniques should be used to evaluate aortic annulus diameters, as 2D imaging techniques, providing only a sagittal view, underestimate them. 3D TEE provides measurements of aortic annulus diameters similar to those obtained by DSCT.
AIMS: Different two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) imaging techniques are used for procedure planning and selection of prosthesis size before transcatheter aortic valve implantation. This study sought to compare different 2D and 3D imaging techniques and determine the accuracy of 3D transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for accurate analysis of aortic annulus dimensions. METHODS: In 49 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation angiography, 2D transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), 2D and 3D TEE, and dual-source CT (DSCT) were performed to determine aortic annulus diameters. TTE and 2D TEE provided only one diameter of the aortic annulus. Angiography, DSCT and 3D TEE allowed measurement of diameters in sagittal and coronal views. The distance between aortic annulus and left main coronary artery ostium was measured by angiography, DSCT and 3D TEE. RESULTS: Sagittal diameters determined by angiography, TTE, 2D TEE, 3D TEE and DSCT were smaller than coronal diameters determined by angiography, 3D TEE and DSCT. Coronal and sagittal diameters determined by 3D TEE were in high agreement with corresponding measurements by DSCT (23.60±1.89 vs 23.46±2.07 mm and 22.19±1.96 vs 22.27±2.01 mm, respectively; mean±SD). There was a high correlation between DSCT and 3D TEE for the definition of coronal and sagittal aortic annulus diameters (r=0.88, SEE=0.89 mm and r=0.77, SEE=1.26 mm, respectively). Correlation of 3D TEE (13.47±1.67 mm) and DSCT (13.64±1.82 mm) in the analysis of the distance between aortic annulus and left main coronary artery ostium was better (r=0.54, SEE=1.55 mm) than between angiography (14.85±3.84 mm) and DSCT (r=0.35, SEE=1.77 mm). CONCLUSIONS: 3D imaging techniques should be used to evaluate aortic annulus diameters, as 2D imaging techniques, providing only a sagittal view, underestimate them. 3D TEE provides measurements of aortic annulus diameters similar to those obtained by DSCT.
Authors: Anuj Mediratta; Karima Addetia; Diego Medvedofsky; Robert J Schneider; Eric Kruse; Atman P Shah; Sandeep Nathan; Jonathan D Paul; John E Blair; Takeyoshi Ota; Husam H Balkhy; Amit R Patel; Victor Mor-Avi; Roberto M Lang Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 1.724
Authors: Antonio H Frangieh; Jonathan Michel; Oliver Deutsch; Michael Joner; Costanza Pellegrini; Tobias Rheude; Sabine Bleiziffer; Albert Markus Kasel Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Johannes Rixe; Annika Schuhbaeck; Christoph Liebetrau; Helge Moellmann; Holger M Nef; Sebastian Szardien; Roland Brandt; Joern Schmitt; Thomas Neumann; Christian Schneider; Gabriele Krombach; Christian W Hamm; Stephan Achenbach; Andreas Rolf Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315