Literature DB >> 25165022

Effective diameter of the aortic annulus prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation: influence of area-based versus perimeter-based calculation.

K von Aspern1, B Foldyna, C D Etz, A Hoyer, F Girrbach, D Holzhey, C Lücke, M Grothoff, A Linke, F W Mohr, M Gutberlet, L Lehmkuhl.   

Abstract

In computed tomography (CT) evaluation prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation area- and perimeter-based calculation of the aortic annulus diameter, the so-called effective annulus diameter (ED), is the preferred parameter for decision making regarding prosthesis sizes. Currently, it is unclear how relevant the differences between the two methods of measurement are and how they are influenced by the cardiac cycle. The aim of this study was to compare area- and perimeter-based measurements in computed tomography derived aortic annulus sizing. A total of 60 patients who underwent evaluation for transcatheter aortic valve implantation were included in this study. All patients received pre-procedural ECG gated CT. The aortic annulus area and perimeter were measured and the derived ED compared using parametric statistics and Bland and Altman analysis. The mean patient age was 80.2 ± 4 years. Systolic aortic annulus area and perimeter were higher compared to diastolic results (mean difference area 12.8 ± 24 mm(2) and perimeter 0.72 ± 1 mm; p = 0.009-0.068). Both the area- and perimeter-based ED had a good agreement within two standard deviations for systolic and diastolic measurements. Effective diameter measurements derived from the area were significantly smaller compared to perimeter-based measurements (mean difference: systolic 0.72 ± 0.3 mm and diastolic 0.81 ± 0.4 mm; p < 0.001). While the area-based ED was significantly influenced by the cardiac cycle with a mean difference of 0.4 ± 0.6 mm (p = 0.009), no significant difference was found for the perimeter-based ED (mean difference: 0.2 ± 0.4; p = 0.07). For patients undergoing CT evaluation prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation, the perimeter-based effective annulus diameter provides a reliable parameter for annulus sizing without significant affection by the cardiac cycle and therefore facilitates annulus measurements with a single heart phase. However, perimeter-based diameters of the annulus are significantly larger than area-based diameters.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25165022     DOI: 10.1007/s10554-014-0527-4

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


  20 in total

Review 1.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  Aortic annulus diameter determination by multidetector computed tomography: reproducibility, applicability, and implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Authors:  Ronen Gurvitch; John G Webb; Ren Yuan; Mark Johnson; Cameron Hague; Alexander B Willson; Stefan Toggweiler; David A Wood; Jian Ye; Robert Moss; Christopher R Thompson; Stephan Achenbach; James K Min; Troy M Labounty; Ricardo Cury; Jonathon Leipsic
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 11.195

3.  Deformation dynamics and mechanical properties of the aortic annulus by 4-dimensional computed tomography: insights into the functional anatomy of the aortic valve complex and implications for transcatheter aortic valve therapy.

Authors:  Ashraf Hamdan; Victor Guetta; Eli Konen; Orly Goitein; Amit Segev; Ehud Raanani; Dan Spiegelstein; Ilan Hay; Elio Di Segni; Michael Eldar; Ehud Schwammenthal
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 24.094

4.  Aortic annulus sizing: echocardiographic versus computed tomography derived measurements in comparison with direct surgical sizing.

Authors:  Jörg Kempfert; Arnaud Van Linden; Lukas Lehmkuhl; Ardawan J Rastan; David Holzhey; Johannes Blumenstein; Friedrich W Mohr; Thomas Walther
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 4.191

5.  Assessment of aortic annulus dimensions for Edwards SAPIEN Transapical Heart Valve implantation by computed tomography: calculating average diameter using a virtual ring method.

Authors:  Philipp Blanke; Matthias Siepe; Jochen Reinöhl; Manfred Zehender; Friedhelm Beyersdorf; Christian Schlensak; Mathias Langer; Gregor Pache
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2010-05-15       Impact factor: 4.191

6.  Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery.

Authors:  Martin B Leon; Craig R Smith; Michael Mack; D Craig Miller; Jeffrey W Moses; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; John G Webb; Gregory P Fontana; Raj R Makkar; David L Brown; Peter C Block; Robert A Guyton; Augusto D Pichard; Joseph E Bavaria; Howard C Herrmann; Pamela S Douglas; John L Petersen; Jodi J Akin; William N Anderson; Duolao Wang; Stuart Pocock
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-09-22       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  ACR appropriateness criteria imaging for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Karin E Dill; Elizabeth George; Suhny Abbara; Kristopher Cummings; Christopher J Francois; Marie D Gerhard-Herman; Heather L Gornik; Michael Hanley; Sanjeeva P Kalva; Jacobo Kirsch; Christopher M Kramer; Bill S Majdalany; John M Moriarty; Isabel B Oliva; Matthew P Schenker; Richard Strax; Frank J Rybicki
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 5.532

8.  2012 ACCF/AATS/SCAI/STS expert consensus document on transcatheter aortic valve replacement: developed in collabration with the American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Heart Failure Society of America, Mended Hearts, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

Authors:  David R Holmes; Michael J Mack; Sanjay Kaul; Arvind Agnihotri; Karen P Alexander; Steven R Bailey; John H Calhoon; Blase A Carabello; Milind Y Desai; Fred H Edwards; Gary S Francis; Timothy J Gardner; A Pieter Kappetein; Jane A Linderbaum; Chirojit Mukherjee; Debabrata Mukherjee; Catherine M Otto; Carlos E Ruiz; Ralph L Sacco; Donnette Smith; James D Thomas; Robert A Harrington; Deepak L Bhatt; Victor A Ferrari; John D Fisher; Mario J Garcia; Timothy J Gardner; Federico Gentile; Michael F Gilson; Adrian F Hernandez; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjay Kaul; Jane A Linderbaum; David J Moliterno; Howard H Weitz
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 5.209

9.  Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description.

Authors:  Alain Cribier; Helene Eltchaninoff; Assaf Bash; Nicolas Borenstein; Christophe Tron; Fabrice Bauer; Genevieve Derumeaux; Frederic Anselme; François Laborde; Martin B Leon
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2002-12-10       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  Manual versus automatic detection of aortic annulus plane in a computed tomography scan for transcatheter aortic valve implantation screening.

Authors:  Arnaud Van Linden; Jörg Kempfert; Johannes Blumenstein; Helge Möllmann; Won-Keun Kim; Serap Alkaya; Christian Hamm; Thomas Walther
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 4.191

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  Cardiovascular imaging 2014 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

Authors: 
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  Assessment of aortic valve tract dynamics using automatic tracking of 3D transesophageal echocardiographic images.

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

Review 3.  Cardiovascular imaging 2015 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

Authors:  Hiram G Bezerra; Ricardo A Costa; Johan H C Reiber; Paul Schoenhagen; Arthur A Stillman; Johan De Sutter; Nico R L Van de Veire
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 4.  Role of Imaging in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Authors:  Corinna Storz; Tobias Geisler; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Konstantin Nikolaou; Fabian Bamberg
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2016-10

Review 5.  Vascular Imaging Before Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): Why and How?

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

Review 6.  Cardiac Computed Tomography - More Than Coronary Arteries? A Clinical Update.

Authors:  Jana Taron; Borek Foldyna; Parastou Eslami; Udo Hoffmann; Konstantin Nikolaou; Fabian Bamberg
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2019-06-27

7.  Computed tomography guided sizing for transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement.

Authors:  Lara Curran; Harsh Agrawal; Kimberly Kallianos; Ahmed Kheiwa; Shezhang Lin; Karen Ordovas; Vaikom S Mahadevan
Journal:  Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc       Date:  2020-04-28

8.  Do CTA measurements of annular diameter, perimeter and area result in different TAVI prosthesis sizes?

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

9.  Aortic annulus sizing in bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves using CT in patients with surgical aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Jooae Choe; Hyun Jung Koo; Joon-Won Kang; Joon Bum Kim; Hee Jun Kang; Dong Hyun Yang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.