Philipp Blanke1, Alexander B Willson2, John G Webb2, Stephan Achenbach3, Nicolo Piazza4, James K Min5, Gregor Pache6, Jonathon Leipsic7. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 2. Department of Cardiology Namborn Hospital, Namborn, Australia. 3. Department of Cardiology, University of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. 4. Department of Cardiology, McGill University, Montreal, QB, Canada; Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Munich Heart Center, Munich, Germany. 5. Institute for Cardiovascular Imaging, Weill-Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 6. Division of Cardiovascular Radiology, University Heart-Center Freiburg-Bad Krozingen, Germany. 7. Department of Radiology, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, 1081 Burrard St, Vancouver, BC V6S 1Y6, Canada. Electronic address: jleipsic@providencehealth.bc.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In transcatheter aortic valve replacement, prosthesis oversizing is essential to prevent paravalvular regurgitation. However, the estimated extent of oversizing strongly depends on the measurement used for annular sizing. PURPOSE: The aim was to investigate the influence of geometrical parameters for calculation of relative oversizing in transcatheter aortic valve replacement, reported as percentage in relation to the native annulus size, to standardize reporting. METHODS: Electrocardiogram-gated cardiac dual-source CT data of 130 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis (mean age, 81 ± 8 years; 56 men; mean aortic valve area, 0.67 ± 0.18 cm2) were included. Aortic annulus dimensions were quantified by means of planimetry that yielded area and perimeter at the level of the basal attachment points of the aortic cusps during systole. Area- and perimeter-derived diameters were calculated as DA = 2 × √(A/π) and DP = P/π. Hypothetical prosthesis sizing was based on DA (23-mm prosthesis for 19-22 mm; 26-mm prosthesis for 22-25 mm; 29-mm prosthesis for 25-28 mm). Relative oversizing for hypothetical prosthesis selection was calculated as percentage in relation to the native annulus size. RESULTS: Mean annulus area was 492.12 ± 94.9 mm2 and mean perimeter was 80.1 ± 7.6 mm. DP was significantly larger than DA (25.5 ± 2.4 mm vs 24.9 ± 2.4 mm; P < .001). Mean maximum diameter was 28.1 ± 3.0 mm and mean minimal diameter was 22.8 ± 2.4 mm. Calculated eccentricity index [EI = 1 - minimal diameter/maximum diameter)] was 0.19 ± 0.06. Difference between DP and DA correlated significantly with EI (r = 0.67; P < .001). Relative oversizing was 10.2% ± 3.8% and 21.6% ± 8.4% by DA and area, and 7.8% ± 3.9% by both DP and perimeter. CONCLUSION: For planimetric assessment of aortic annulus dimensions with CT, the percentage oversizing calculated strongly depends on the geometrical variable used for quantifying annular dimensions. Standardized nomenclature seems warranted for comparison of future studies.
BACKGROUND: In transcatheter aortic valve replacement, prosthesis oversizing is essential to prevent paravalvular regurgitation. However, the estimated extent of oversizing strongly depends on the measurement used for annular sizing. PURPOSE: The aim was to investigate the influence of geometrical parameters for calculation of relative oversizing in transcatheter aortic valve replacement, reported as percentage in relation to the native annulus size, to standardize reporting. METHODS: Electrocardiogram-gated cardiac dual-source CT data of 130 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis (mean age, 81 ± 8 years; 56 men; mean aortic valve area, 0.67 ± 0.18 cm2) were included. Aortic annulus dimensions were quantified by means of planimetry that yielded area and perimeter at the level of the basal attachment points of the aortic cusps during systole. Area- and perimeter-derived diameters were calculated as DA = 2 × √(A/π) and DP = P/π. Hypothetical prosthesis sizing was based on DA (23-mm prosthesis for 19-22 mm; 26-mm prosthesis for 22-25 mm; 29-mm prosthesis for 25-28 mm). Relative oversizing for hypothetical prosthesis selection was calculated as percentage in relation to the native annulus size. RESULTS: Mean annulus area was 492.12 ± 94.9 mm2 and mean perimeter was 80.1 ± 7.6 mm. DP was significantly larger than DA (25.5 ± 2.4 mm vs 24.9 ± 2.4 mm; P < .001). Mean maximum diameter was 28.1 ± 3.0 mm and mean minimal diameter was 22.8 ± 2.4 mm. Calculated eccentricity index [EI = 1 - minimal diameter/maximum diameter)] was 0.19 ± 0.06. Difference between DP and DA correlated significantly with EI (r = 0.67; P < .001). Relative oversizing was 10.2% ± 3.8% and 21.6% ± 8.4% by DA and area, and 7.8% ± 3.9% by both DP and perimeter. CONCLUSION: For planimetric assessment of aortic annulus dimensions with CT, the percentage oversizing calculated strongly depends on the geometrical variable used for quantifying annular dimensions. Standardized nomenclature seems warranted for comparison of future studies.
Authors: Tian-Yuan Xiong; Walid Ben Ali; Yuan Feng; Kentaro Hayashida; Hasan Jilaihawi; Azeem Latib; Michael Kang-Yin Lee; Martin B Leon; Raj R Makkar; Thomas Modine; Christoph Naber; Yong Peng; Nicolo Piazza; Michael J Reardon; Simon Redwood; Ashok Seth; Lars Sondergaard; Edgar Tay; Didier Tchetche; Wei-Hsian Yin; Mao Chen; Bernard Prendergast; Darren Mylotte Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Damiano Caruso; Russell D Rosenberg; Carlo N De Cecco; Stefanie Mangold; Julian L Wichmann; Akos Varga-Szemes; Daniel H Steinberg; Andrea Laghi; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Xin Meng; Yandan Sun; Wei Bai; Yuxi Li; Shengjun Tuo; Liang Cao; Mengmeng Du; Yang Liu; Ping Jin; Jian Yang; Liwen Liu Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2022-01
Authors: Barbora Horehledova; Casper Mihl; Babs M F Hendriks; Nienke G Eijsvoogel; Jindrich Vainer; Leo F Veenstra; Joachim E Wildberger; Marco Das Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-06-16 Impact factor: 2.357