Literature DB >> 25893746

CT evaluation prior to transapical aortic valve replacement: semi-automatic versus manual image segmentation.

Borek Foldyna1, Camelia Jungert, Christian Luecke, Konstantin von Aspern, Sonja Boehmer-Lasthaus, Eva Maria Rueth, Matthias Grothoff, Stefan Nitzsche, Matthias Gutberlet, Friedrich Wilhelm Mohr, Lukas Lehmkuhl.   

Abstract

To compare the performance of semi-automatic versus manual segmentation for ECG-triggered cardiovascular computed tomography (CT) examinations prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), with focus on the speed and precision of experienced versus inexperienced observers. The preoperative ECG-triggered CT data of 30 consecutive patients who were scheduled for TAVR were included. All datasets were separately evaluated by two radiologists with 1 and 5 years of experience (novice and expert, respectively) in cardiovascular CT using an evaluation software program with or without a semi-automatic TAVR workflow. The time expended for data loading and all segmentation steps required for the implantation planning were assessed. Inter-software as well as inter-observer reliability analysis was performed. The CT datasets were successfully evaluated, with mean duration between 520.4 ± 117.6 s and 693.2 ± 159.5 s. The three most time-consuming steps were the 3D volume rendering, the measurement of aorta diameter and the sizing of the aortic annulus. Using semi-automatic segmentation, a novice could evaluate CT data approximately 12.3% faster than with manual segmentation, and an expert could evaluate CT data approximately 10.3% faster [mean differences of 85.4 ± 83.8 s (p < 0.001) and 59.8 ± 101 s (p < 0.001), respectively]. The inter-software reliability for a novice was slightly lower than for an expert; however, the reliability for a novice and expert was excellent (ICC 0.92, 95% CI 0.75-0.97/ICC 0.96, 95% CI 0.91-0.98). Automatic aortic annulus detection failed in two patients (6.7%). The study revealed excellent inter-software and inter-observer reliability, with a mean ICC of 0.95. TAVR evaluation can be accomplished significantly faster with semi-automatic rather than with manual segmentation, with comparable exactness, showing a benefit for experienced and inexperienced observers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25893746     DOI: 10.1007/s10554-015-0662-6

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


  21 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Assessment of the aortic annulus by multislice computed tomography, contrast aortography, and trans-thoracic echocardiography in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Authors:  Apostolos Tzikas; Carl J Schultz; Nicolo Piazza; Adrian Moelker; Nicolas M Van Mieghem; Rutger-Jan Nuis; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Marcel L Geleijnse; Patrick W Serruys; Peter P T de Jaegere
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2011-04-14       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Role of preprocedural computed tomography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Authors:  L Lehmkuhl; B Foldyna; M Haensig; K von Aspern; C Lücke; C Andres; M Grothoff; F Riese; S Nitzsche; D Holzhey; A Linke; F-W Mohr; M Gutberlet
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2013-09-02

5.  Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement.

Authors:  Susheel K Kodali; Mathew R Williams; Craig R Smith; Lars G Svensson; John G Webb; Raj R Makkar; Gregory P Fontana; Todd M Dewey; Vinod H Thourani; Augusto D Pichard; Michael Fischbein; Wilson Y Szeto; Scott Lim; Kevin L Greason; Paul S Teirstein; S Chris Malaisrie; Pamela S Douglas; Rebecca T Hahn; Brian Whisenant; Alan Zajarias; Duolao Wang; Jodi J Akin; William N Anderson; Martin B Leon
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-03-26       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Determination of the aortic annulus plane in CT imaging-a step-by-step approach.

Authors:  Stephan Achenbach; Annika Schuhbäck; James K Min; Jonathon Leipsic
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2013-02

7.  Post-processing in cardiovascular computed tomography: performance of a client server solution versus a stand-alone solution.

Authors:  C Lücke; B Foldyna; C Andres; S Boehmer-Lasthaus; M Grothoff; S Nitzsche; M Gutberlet; L Lehmkuhl
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2014-08-14

8.  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

9.  Acute left main obstructions following TAVI.

Authors:  Eugenio Stabile; Giovanni Sorropago; Angelo Cioppa; Linda Cota; Marco Agrusta; Vincenzo Lucchetti; Paolo Rubino
Journal:  EuroIntervention       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 6.534

10.  The impact of integration of a multidetector computed tomography annulus area sizing algorithm on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a prospective, multicenter, controlled trial.

Authors:  Ronald K Binder; John G Webb; Alexander B Willson; Marina Urena; Nicolaj C Hansson; Bjarne L Norgaard; Philippe Pibarot; Marco Barbanti; Eric Larose; Melanie Freeman; Eric Dumont; Chris Thompson; Miriam Wheeler; Robert R Moss; Tae-hyun Yang; Sergio Pasian; Cameron J Hague; Giang Nguyen; Rekha Raju; Stefan Toggweiler; James K Min; David A Wood; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Jonathon Leipsic
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 24.094

View more
  7 in total

1.  Semi-automatic CT-angiography based evaluation of the aortic annulus in patients prior to TAVR: interchangeability with manual measurements.

Authors:  Dominik Zinsser; Alena B Baumann; Katharina Stella Winter; Fabian Bamberg; Philipp Lange; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian Reiser; Christian Kupatt; Thomas Kröncke; Florian Schwarz
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 2.  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

3.  Inter- and intra-observer repeatability of aortic annulus measurements on screening CT for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR): Implications for appropriate device sizing.

Authors:  Gesine Knobloch; Sarah Sweetman; Carrie Bartels; Amish Raval; Georgio Gimelli; Kurt Jacobson; Lucian Lozonschi; Takushi Kohmoto; Satoru Osaki; Christopher François; Scott Nagle
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 3.528

Review 4.  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

5.  Performance of Dynamic Automated CT Annular Measurements Compared to Standard Manual Measurements for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Sizing.

Authors:  Quynh A Truong; Alan C Legasto; Roderick C Deaño; Daniel P Bachman; Deep Bhatt; Subhi J Al'Aref; Richard B Devereux; S Chiu Wong; Arash Salemi; Jackie Szymonifka
Journal:  Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging       Date:  2019-08-29

6.  Fully automated measurement of aortic root anatomy using Philips HeartNavigator computed tomography software: fast, accurate, or both?

Authors:  Viktor Kočka; Lucie Bártová; Naďa Valošková; Marek Laboš; Jiří Weichet; Marek Neuberg; And Petr Toušek
Journal:  Eur Heart J Suppl       Date:  2022-03-30       Impact factor: 1.803

7.  Multi-Slice Computed Tomography Analysis in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement - Impact of Workflows on Measurement of Virtual Aortic Annulus and Valve Size.

Authors:  Kerstin Piayda; Katharina Hellhammer; Verena Veulemans; Shazia Afzal; Kathrin Klein; Nora Berisha; Pia Leuders; Ralf Erkens; Julian Kirchner; Houtan Heidari; Malte Kelm; Gerald Antoch; Tobias Zeus; Christine Quast
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-06-21
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.