BACKGROUND: Correct sizing of the aortic annulus in aortic valve stenosis is crucial for successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Multislice computed tomography (MSCT) seems to be most promising imaging modality for this pre-interventional diagnostic work-up, but has the disadvantage of exposing mostly co-morbid patients to iodine and nephrotoxic contrast agents. To establish a useful sizing method for TAVI without the use of contrast media, we compared measurements of a non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique with MSCT serving as the reference standard. METHODS: Fifty-two patients who underwent TAVI were previously examined with MSCT and MRI, respectively. MRI examination included a 3D steady-state free-precession sequence covering the entire ascending aorta. Perimeter and area of the aortic root were analyzed by two blinded readers in consensus using a dedicated software. Decisions for Sapien 3 valve size of both imaging modalities were compared using the mean derived annulus diameter. RESULTS: Mean age of the study cohort was 82.2 ± 4.9 years, log EuroScore was 25.2 ± 4.8 %. Mean aortic annulus perimeter as measured by MSCT was 76.7 ± 6.9 mm. MRI yielded a mean perimeter of 76.5 ± 6.7 mm with a good correlation coefficient (r = 0.93, p < 0.0001). Decision for valve size showed good correlation between both imaging modalities (r = 0.94, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, non-contrast MRI shows good correlation to MSCT in the assessment of the aortic annulus and valve sizing. This non-contrast technique might be a reasonable alternative for aortic root sizing before TAVI without the use of nephrotoxic contrast agents, especially in patients with severely reduced kidney function.
BACKGROUND: Correct sizing of the aortic annulus in aortic valve stenosis is crucial for successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Multislice computed tomography (MSCT) seems to be most promising imaging modality for this pre-interventional diagnostic work-up, but has the disadvantage of exposing mostly co-morbid patients to iodine and nephrotoxic contrast agents. To establish a useful sizing method for TAVI without the use of contrast media, we compared measurements of a non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique with MSCT serving as the reference standard. METHODS: Fifty-two patients who underwent TAVI were previously examined with MSCT and MRI, respectively. MRI examination included a 3D steady-state free-precession sequence covering the entire ascending aorta. Perimeter and area of the aortic root were analyzed by two blinded readers in consensus using a dedicated software. Decisions for Sapien 3 valve size of both imaging modalities were compared using the mean derived annulus diameter. RESULTS: Mean age of the study cohort was 82.2 ± 4.9 years, log EuroScore was 25.2 ± 4.8 %. Mean aortic annulus perimeter as measured by MSCT was 76.7 ± 6.9 mm. MRI yielded a mean perimeter of 76.5 ± 6.7 mm with a good correlation coefficient (r = 0.93, p < 0.0001). Decision for valve size showed good correlation between both imaging modalities (r = 0.94, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, non-contrast MRI shows good correlation to MSCT in the assessment of the aortic annulus and valve sizing. This non-contrast technique might be a reasonable alternative for aortic root sizing before TAVI without the use of nephrotoxic contrast agents, especially in patients with severely reduced kidney function.
Entities:
Keywords:
Magnetic resonance imaging; 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
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
Authors: Carl J Schultz; Adriaan Moelker; Nicolo Piazza; Apostolos Tzikas; Amber Otten; Rutger J Nuis; Lisan A Neefjes; Robert J van Geuns; Pim de Feyter; Gabriel Krestin; Patrick W Serruys; Peter P T de Jaegere Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2009-12-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Oliver Klass; Matthew J Walker; Mark E Olszewski; Johannes Bahner; Sebastian Feuerlein; Martin H K Hoffmann; Alexandra Lang Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Michal Smíd; Jirí Ferda; Jan Baxa; Jakub Cech; Tomás Hájek; Boris Kreuzberg; Richard Rokyta Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2009-02-23 Impact factor: 3.528
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: Tobias Rheude; Costanza Pellegrini; Jonathan Michel; Christian Thilo; Michael Joner; Albert Markus Kasel Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Birgid Gonska; Julia Seeger; Mirjam Keßler; Alexander von Keil; Wolfgang Rottbauer; Jochen Wöhrle Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Mathias Pamminger; Gert Klug; Christof Kranewitter; Martin Reindl; Sebastian J Reinstadler; Benjamin Henninger; Christina Tiller; Magdalena Holzknecht; Christian Kremser; Axel Bauer; Werner Jaschke; Bernhard Metzler; Agnes Mayr Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 5.315