Literature DB >> 28487320

Aortic Valve Annular Sizing: Intraoperative Assessment Versus Preoperative Multidetector Computed Tomography.

Isaac George1, Laura C Guglielmetti2, Nicolas Bettinger2, Andrew Moss2, Catherine Wang2, Nathan Kheysin2, Rebecca Hahn2, Susheel Kodali2, Martin Leon2, Vinayak Bapat2, Michael A Borger2, Mathew Williams2, Craig Smith2, Omar K Khalique2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Appropriate valve sizing is critical in aortic valve replacement. We hypothesized that direct intraoperative valve sizing results in smaller aortic annular diameters compared with sizing based on systolic-phase multidetector computerized tomographic (MDCT) imaging. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed 78 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis between 2012 and 2014 at our institution. Preoperative MDCT measurements of the aortic annulus served as basis for assignment to a theoretical surgical valve size, which was then (1) compared to the implanted valve size and (2) to a theoretical transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve size. To quantify the resulting differences, geometric orifice areas (GOA) were calculated. MDCT-based sizing produced the same valve size for n=34 patients (group CT-same), a larger valve with a 25% increased GOA in n=32 patients (group CT-Lg) and a smaller GOA by 22% in n=12 patients (group CT-Sm). On the basis of MDCT measurements, 41% of valves implanted were undersized. The comparison of intraoperative implanted to a theoretical transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve size resulted in GOAs 25% larger for patients in group CT-same, 40.6% larger in group CT-Lg and 14.6% larger in group CT-Sm.
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative MDCT measurements differ substantially from direct intraoperative assessment of the aortic annulus. Implanted surgical aortic valve replacement valves were smaller relative to MDCT-based sizing in 41% of patients, and the potential GOA was between 25% and 40.6% larger if patients had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aortic valve; echocardiography; hemodynamics; surgeons; transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28487320     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.116.005968

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1941-9651            Impact factor:   7.792


  6 in total

1.  Optimal pre-TAVR annulus sizing in patients with bicuspid aortic valve: area-derived perimeter by CT is the best-correlated measure with intraoperative sizing.

Authors:  Yuan Wang; Moyang Wang; Guanyuan Song; Wei Wang; Bin Lv; Hao Wang; Yongjian Wu
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Pros and cons of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

Authors:  Juan A Terré; Isaac George; Craig R Smith
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2017-09

3.  A retrospective study on the trends in surgical aortic valve replacement outcomes in the post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement era.

Authors:  Johnny Chahine; Zeina Jedeon; Jacob Fiocchi; Andrew Shaffer; Ryan Knoper; Ranjit John; Demetris Yannopoulos; Ganesh Raveendran; Sergey Gurevich
Journal:  Health Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-22

4.  Commentary: The importance of understanding fluid dynamics.

Authors:  Francisco Diniz Affonso da Costa
Journal:  JTCVS Open       Date:  2022-02-11

Review 5.  Management of Failed Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves: Mitigating Complications and Optimizing Outcomes.

Authors:  Elizabeth L Norton; Alison F Ward; Adam Greenbaum; Kendra J Grubb
Journal:  J Interv Cardiol       Date:  2022-09-02       Impact factor: 1.776

6.  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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.