OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine imaging predictors of aortic regurgitation (AR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and the agreement and reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), cardiac computed tomography (CCT), and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in aortic root assessment. BACKGROUND: The optimal imaging strategy for planning TAVI is unclear with a paucity of comparative multimodality imaging data. The association between aortic root morphology and outcomes after TAVI also remains incompletely understood. METHODS: A total of 202 consecutive patients assessed by CMR, CCT, and TTE for TAVI were studied. Agreement and variability among and within imaging modalities was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. Postoperative AR was assessed by TTE. RESULTS: Of the 202 patients undergoing TAVI assessment with both CMR and TTE, 133 also underwent CCT. Close agreement was observed between CMR and CCT in dimensions of the aortic annulus (bias, -0.4 mm; 95% limits of agreement: -5.7 to 5.0 mm), and similarly for sinus of Valsalva, sinotubular junction, and ascending aortic measures. Agreement between TTE-derived measures and either CMR or CCT was less precise. Intraobserver and interobserver variability were lowest with CMR. The presence and severity of AR after TAVI were associated with larger aortic valve annulus measurements by both CMR (p = 0.03) and CCT (p = 0.04) but not TTE-derived measures (p = 0.10). Neither CCT nor CMR measures of annulus eccentricity, however, predicted AR after TAVI (p = 0.33 and p = 0.78, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing imaging assessment for TAVI, the presence and severity of AR after TAVI were associated with larger aortic annulus measurements by both CMR and CCT, but not TTE. Both CMR and CCT provide highly reproducible information in the assessment of patients undergoing TAVI. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine imaging predictors of aortic regurgitation (AR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and the agreement and reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), cardiac computed tomography (CCT), and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in aortic root assessment. BACKGROUND: The optimal imaging strategy for planning TAVI is unclear with a paucity of comparative multimodality imaging data. The association between aortic root morphology and outcomes after TAVI also remains incompletely understood. METHODS: A total of 202 consecutive patients assessed by CMR, CCT, and TTE for TAVI were studied. Agreement and variability among and within imaging modalities was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. Postoperative AR was assessed by TTE. RESULTS: Of the 202 patients undergoing TAVI assessment with both CMR and TTE, 133 also underwent CCT. Close agreement was observed between CMR and CCT in dimensions of the aortic annulus (bias, -0.4 mm; 95% limits of agreement: -5.7 to 5.0 mm), and similarly for sinus of Valsalva, sinotubular junction, and ascending aortic measures. Agreement between TTE-derived measures and either CMR or CCT was less precise. Intraobserver and interobserver variability were lowest with CMR. The presence and severity of AR after TAVI were associated with larger aortic valve annulus measurements by both CMR (p = 0.03) and CCT (p = 0.04) but not TTE-derived measures (p = 0.10). Neither CCT nor CMR measures of annulus eccentricity, however, predicted AR after TAVI (p = 0.33 and p = 0.78, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing imaging assessment for TAVI, the presence and severity of AR after TAVI were associated with larger aortic annulus measurements by both CMR and CCT, but not TTE. Both CMR and CCT provide highly reproducible information in the assessment of patients undergoing TAVI. Copyright Â
Authors: Peter Bernhardt; Christoph Rodewald; Julia Seeger; Birgid Gonska; Dominik Buckert; Michael Radermacher; Vinzenz Hombach; Wolfgang Rottbauer; Jochen Wöhrle Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Matthias Renker; Akos Varga-Szemes; U Joseph Schoepf; Stefan Baumann; Davide Piccini; Michael O Zenge; Wolfgang G Rehwald; Edgar Müller; Jeremy D Rier; Helge Möllmann; Christian W Hamm; Daniel H Steinberg; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Federico E Mordini; Conor F Hynes; Richard L Amdur; Jeffrey Panting; Dominic A Emerson; Jason Morrissette; Erin Goheen-Thomas; Michael D Greenberg; Gregory D Trachiotis Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 2.357