Literature DB >> 22318541

Aortic annulus dimension assessment by computed tomography for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: differences between systole and diastole.

Angela G Bertaso1, Dennis T L Wong, Gary Y H Liew, Michael S Cunnington, James D Richardson, Viji S Thomson, Brett Lorraine, George Kourlis, Diana Leech, Matthew I Worthley, Stephen G Worthley.   

Abstract

Accurate assessment of aortic annular dimensions is essential for successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Annular dimensions are conventionally measured in mid-systole by multidetector computed tomography (MDCT), echocardiography and angiography. Significant differences in systolic and diastolic aortic annular dimensions have been demonstrated in cohorts without aortic stenosis (AS), but it is unknown whether similar dynamic variation in annular dimensions exists in patients with severe calcific AS in whom aortic compliance is likely to be substantially reduced. We investigated the variation in aortic annular dimensions between systole and diastole in patients with severe calcific AS. Patients with severe calcific AS referred for TAVI were evaluated by 128-slice MDCT. Aortic annular diameter was measured during diastole and systole in the modified coronal, modified sagittal, and basal ring planes (maximal, minimal and mean diameters). Differences between systole and diastole were analysed by paired t test. Fifty-nine patients were included in the analysis. Three of the five aortic dimensions measured increased significantly during systole. The largest change was a 0.75 mm (3.4%) mean increase in the minimal diameter of the basal ring during systole (p = 0.004). This corresponds closely to the modified sagittal view, which also increased by mean 0.42 mm (1.9%) during systole (p = 0.008). There was no significant change in the maximal diameter of the basal ring or the modified coronal view during systole (p > 0.05). There is a small magnitude but statistically significant difference in aortic annulus dimensions of patients with severe AS referred for TAVI when measured in diastole and systole. This small difference is unlikely to alter clinical decisions regarding prosthesis size or suitability for TAVI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22318541     DOI: 10.1007/s10554-012-0018-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1569-5794            Impact factor:   2.357


  16 in total

1.  Deformational dynamics of the aortic root: modes and physiologic determinants.

Authors:  P Dagum; G R Green; F J Nistal; G T Daughters; T A Timek; L E Foppiano; A F Bolger; N B Ingels; D C Miller
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1999-11-09       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Mechanisms of aortic valve incompetence in aging: a finite element model.

Authors:  K J Grande; R P Cochran; P G Reinhall; K S Kunzelman
Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis       Date:  1999-03

3.  Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology.

Authors:  Roberto M Lang; Michelle Bierig; Richard B Devereux; Frank A Flachskampf; Elyse Foster; Patricia A Pellikka; Michael H Picard; Mary J Roman; James Seward; Jack S Shanewise; Scott D Solomon; Kirk T Spencer; Martin St John Sutton; William J Stewart
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 5.251

Review 4.  Ageing of the conduit arteries.

Authors:  S E Greenwald
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 7.996

5.  Echocardiographic assessment of valve stenosis: EAE/ASE recommendations for clinical practice.

Authors:  Helmut Baumgartner; Judy Hung; Javier Bermejo; John B Chambers; Arturo Evangelista; Brian P Griffin; Bernard Iung; Catherine M Otto; Patricia A Pellikka; Miguel Quiñones
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 5.251

6.  Comparison of aortic root dimensions and geometries before and after transcatheter aortic valve implantation by 2- and 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography and multislice computed tomography.

Authors:  Arnold C T Ng; Victoria Delgado; Frank van der Kley; Miriam Shanks; Nico R L van de Veire; Matteo Bertini; Gaetano Nucifora; Rutger J van Bommel; Laurens F Tops; Arend de Weger; Giuseppe Tavilla; Albert de Roos; Lucia J Kroft; Dominic Y Leung; Joanne Schuijf; Martin J Schalij; Jeroen J Bax
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 7.792

7.  Pre-procedural imaging of aortic root orientation and dimensions: comparison between X-ray angiographic planar imaging and 3-dimensional multidetector row computed tomography.

Authors:  Vikram Kurra; Samir R Kapadia; E Murat Tuzcu; Sandra S Halliburton; Lars Svensson; Eric E Roselli; Paul Schoenhagen
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 11.195

8.  Geometric mismatch between homograft (allograft) and native aortic root: a 14-year clinical experience.

Authors:  A C Yankah; H Klose; M Musci; H Siniawski; R Hetzer
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 4.191

9.  Noninvasive evaluation of the aortic root with multislice computed tomography implications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Laurens F Tops; David A Wood; Victoria Delgado; Joanne D Schuijf; John R Mayo; Sanjeevan Pasupati; Frouke P L Lamers; Ernst E van der Wall; Martin J Schalij; John G Webb; Jeroen J Bax
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2008-05

10.  Role of multislice computed tomography in transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  David A Wood; Laurens F Tops; John R Mayo; Sanjeevan Pasupati; Martin J Schalij; Karin Humphries; May Lee; Abdullah Al Ali; Brad Munt; Rob Moss; Christopher R Thompson; Jeroen J Bax; John G Webb
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 2.778

View more
  10 in total

1.  Cyclic changes in area- and perimeter-derived effective dimensions of the aortic annulus measured with multislice computed tomography and comparison with metric intraoperative sizing.

Authors:  Won-Keun Kim; Alexander Meyer; Helge Möllmann; Andreas Rolf; Susanne Möllmann; Johannes Blumenstein; Arnaud Van Linden; Christian W Hamm; Thomas Walther; Jörg Kempfert
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 5.460

2.  Computed tomography of dynamic changes of the aortic root during systole and diastole in patients with coronary artery calcification.

Authors:  Xiaohan Hu; Claudia Frellesen; Ralf W Bauer; J Matthias Kerl; Martin Beeres; Boris Bodelle; Thomas Lehnert; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  Comparison of aortic root dimension changes during cardiac cycle between the patients with and without aortic valve calcification using ECG-gated 64-slice and dual-source 256-slice computed tomography scanners: results of a multicenter study.

Authors:  Abbas Arjmand Shabestari; Ramin Pourghorban; Mahmood Tehrai; Hamidreza Pouraliakbar; Taraneh Faghihi Langroudi; Hooman Bakhshandeh; Seifollah Abdi
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2013-04-13       Impact factor: 2.357

4.  MDCT evaluation of aortic root and aortic valve prior to TAVI. What is the optimal imaging time point in the cardiac cycle?

Authors:  Tomas Jurencak; Jakub Turek; Bastiaan L J H Kietselaer; Casper Mihl; Madeleine Kok; Vincent G V A van Ommen; Leen A F M van Garsse; Estelle C Nijssen; Joachim E Wildberger; Marco Das
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-02-24       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Non-invasive determination of pressure recovery by cardiac MRI and echocardiography in patients with severe aortic stenosis: short and long-term outcome prediction.

Authors:  Florian Sagmeister; Sebastian Herrmann; Tobias Gassenmaier; Peter Bernhardt; Volker Rasche; Andreas Liebold; Frank Weidemann; Horst Brunner; Meinrad Beer
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 1.671

6.  CT-angiography-based evaluation of the aortic annulus for prosthesis sizing in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)-predictive value and optimal thresholds for major anatomic parameters.

Authors:  Florian Schwarz; Philipp Lange; Dominik Zinsser; Martin Greif; Peter Boekstegers; Christoph Schmitz; Maximilian F Reiser; Christian Kupatt; Hans C Becker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  The MUK five protocol: a phase II randomised, controlled, parallel group, multi-centre trial of carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (CCD) vs. cyclophosphamide, bortezomib (Velcade) and dexamethasone (CVD) for first relapse and primary refractory multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Sarah Brown; Samantha Hinsley; Mónica Ballesteros; Sue Bourne; Paul McGarry; Debbie Sherratt; Louise Flanagan; Walter Gregory; Jamie Cavenagh; Roger Owen; Cathy Williams; Martin Kaiser; Eric Low; Kwee Yong
Journal:  BMC Hematol       Date:  2016-05-17

8.  Automatic aortic root landmark detection in CTA images for preprocedural planning of transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Authors:  Mustafa Elattar; Esther Wiegerinck; Floortje van Kesteren; Lucile Dubois; Nils Planken; Ed Vanbavel; Jan Baan; Henk Marquering
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 2.357

9.  Dynamics of the aortic annulus in 4D CT angiography for transcatheter aortic valve implantation patients.

Authors:  Mustafa A Elattar; Leon W Vink; Martijn S van Mourik; Jan Baan; Ed T vanBavel; R Nils Planken; Henk A Marquering
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Retrospectively ECG-gated helical vs. non-ECG-synchronized high-pitch CTA of the aortic root for TAVI planning.

Authors:  Barbora Horehledova; Casper Mihl; Ellen Boswijk; Genevieve A J C Crombag; Estelle C Nijssen; Patty J Nelemans; Leo F Veenstra; Joachim E Wildberger; Marco Das
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.