OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate pulsatile changes of the aortic annulus and their impact on prosthesis selection by computed tomography (CT). BACKGROUND: Precise noninvasive prosthesis sizing is a prerequisite for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. METHODS: A total of 110 patients with severe aortic stenosis (mean age: 82.9 ± 8 years, mean aortic valve area: 0.69 ± 0.18 cm(2)) underwent electrocardiogram-gated CT. Aortic annulus dimensions were planimetrically quantified as area-derived diameter (D(A) = 2 ×✓(CSA/π), where CSA is the cross-sectional area) and perimeter-derived diameter (D(P) = P/π, where P is the length of the perimeter) in 5% increments of the RR interval. Hypothetical prosthesis sizing was based on D(A) and D(P) (23-mm prosthesis for <22 mm; 26 mm: 22 to 25 mm; 29 mm: >25 mm) and compared between maximum and traditional cardiac CT reconstruction phases at 35% and 75% of RR. Agreement for prosthesis selection was calculated by κ statistics. RESULTS: D(A) and D(P) were increased and eccentricity was reduced during systole, with D(A-MAX) and D(P-MAX) most often observed at 20% of RR. D(P) was consistently larger than D(A). Average net differences were 2.0 ± 0.6 mm and 1.7 ± 0.5 mm by D(A-MIN) versus D(A-MAX) and D(P-MIN) versus D(P-MAX). Agreement for prosthesis sizing was found in 93 of 110 patients (κ = 0.75) by D(A-75%) and in 80 of 110 patients (κ = 0.53) by D(A-MAX) compared with D(A-35%); and in 94 of 110 patients (κ = 0.73) by D(P-75%) and in 93 of 110 patients (κ = 0.73) by D(P-MAX) compared with D(P-35%). With sizing by D(A-75%) or D(P-75%), nominal prosthesis diameter was smaller than D(A-MAX) or D(P-MAX) in 15 and 6 patients respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic annulus morphology exhibits conformational pulsatile changes throughout the cardiac cycle due to deformation and stretch. These changes affect prosthesis selection. Prosthesis selection by diastolic perimeter- or area-derived dimensions harbors the risk of undersizing.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate pulsatile changes of the aortic annulus and their impact on prosthesis selection by computed tomography (CT). BACKGROUND: Precise noninvasive prosthesis sizing is a prerequisite for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. METHODS: A total of 110 patients with severe aortic stenosis (mean age: 82.9 ± 8 years, mean aortic valve area: 0.69 ± 0.18 cm(2)) underwent electrocardiogram-gated CT. Aortic annulus dimensions were planimetrically quantified as area-derived diameter (D(A) = 2 ×✓(CSA/π), where CSA is the cross-sectional area) and perimeter-derived diameter (D(P) = P/π, where P is the length of the perimeter) in 5% increments of the RR interval. Hypothetical prosthesis sizing was based on D(A) and D(P) (23-mm prosthesis for <22 mm; 26 mm: 22 to 25 mm; 29 mm: >25 mm) and compared between maximum and traditional cardiac CT reconstruction phases at 35% and 75% of RR. Agreement for prosthesis selection was calculated by κ statistics. RESULTS: D(A) and D(P) were increased and eccentricity was reduced during systole, with D(A-MAX) and D(P-MAX) most often observed at 20% of RR. D(P) was consistently larger than D(A). Average net differences were 2.0 ± 0.6 mm and 1.7 ± 0.5 mm by D(A-MIN) versus D(A-MAX) and D(P-MIN) versus D(P-MAX). Agreement for prosthesis sizing was found in 93 of 110 patients (κ = 0.75) by D(A-75%) and in 80 of 110 patients (κ = 0.53) by D(A-MAX) compared with D(A-35%); and in 94 of 110 patients (κ = 0.73) by D(P-75%) and in 93 of 110 patients (κ = 0.73) by D(P-MAX) compared with D(P-35%). With sizing by D(A-75%) or D(P-75%), nominal prosthesis diameter was smaller than D(A-MAX) or D(P-MAX) in 15 and 6 patients respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic annulus morphology exhibits conformational pulsatile changes throughout the cardiac cycle due to deformation and stretch. These changes affect prosthesis selection. Prosthesis selection by diastolic perimeter- or area-derived dimensions harbors the risk of undersizing.
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
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
Authors: Keshav Kohli; Zhenglun Alan Wei; Ajit P Yoganathan; John N Oshinski; Jonathon Leipsic; Philipp Blanke Journal: Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med Date: 2018-10-26
Authors: Sandro Queirós; Pedro Morais; Wolfgang Fehske; Alexandros Papachristidis; Jens-Uwe Voigt; Jaime C Fonseca; Jan D'hooge; João L Vilaça Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Simon S Martin; Moritz H Albrecht; Julian L Wichmann; Kristina Hüsers; Jan-Erik Scholtz; Christian Booz; Boris Bodelle; Ralf W Bauer; Sarah C Metzger; Thomas J Vogl; Thomas Lehnert Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-05-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lloyd M Felmly; Carlo N De Cecco; U Joseph Schoepf; Akos Varga-Szemes; Stefanie Mangold; Andrew D McQuiston; Sheldon E Litwin; Richard R Bayer; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Cihan Duran; Irfan Masood; Alper Duran; Luba Frank; Arsalan Saleem; Raja Muthupillai; Benjamin Y C Cheong Journal: Eurasian J Med Date: 2020-02