Yuan Wang1, Moyang Wang1, Guanyuan Song1, Wei Wang2, Bin Lv3, Hao Wang4, Yongjian Wu5. 1. Department of Cardiology, Ward 52, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Disease, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, No.167 Beilishi Rd, Beijing, 10037, China. 2. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Disease, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Radiology, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Disease, Beijing, China. 4. Department of Ultrasound, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Disease, Beijing, China. 5. Department of Cardiology, Ward 52, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Disease, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, No.167 Beilishi Rd, Beijing, 10037, China. fuwai52wardw@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the optimal measurements for patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) preferred for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), our study compared intraoperative sizing with five different approaches by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3DTEE) and computed tomography (CT). METHODS: We enrolled 104 BAV patients prescreened for TAVR but who underwent surgery with direct intraoperative annulus sizing. All five approaches [2DTTE, 3DTEE, area-derived perimeter (CTarea), perimeter-derived diameter (CTperi) and mean diameter (CTmean)] were compared with intraoperative sizing, respectively. Agreements on theoretical valve selections by five methods with those by intraoperative sizing were analyzed. RESULTS: CTarea showed the highest correlation (r = 0.932) and the best agreement with intraoperative sizing. Agreement for theoretical surgical and TAVR prosthesis selection was found in 84.6% and 74.0% BAVs by CTarea (κ = 0.791, κ = 0.585). CTperi-based prosthesis selection led to overestimation of 26.9% for surgical valves (κ = 0.589) and 36.5% for TAVR valves (κ = 0.425). Good correlations were observed between CT measurements and intraoperative sizing regardless of the predominant site of aortic valve calcification (r = 0.860-0.953). CONCLUSION: The CTarea, which demonstrated the optimal approach to annulus sizing and prosthesis choice of BAVs with high eccentricity, should be included into the BAV-specific annulus sizing recommendation. The insufficiency of CTperi lay in overestimation of surgical or TAVR valve selections. Good agreement of 3DTEE sizing proved its superiority in annulus sizing for BAVs unsuitable for CT, but it should be used with caution for patients with a calcified annulus, where partial acoustic shadowing could lead to image inaccuracy. KEY POINTS: • The area-derived perimeter by CT is the optimal approach to annulus sizing of BAVs. • The perimeter-derived approach is prone to overestimation of BAVs. • 3DTEE showed its superiority in annulus sizing for BAVs unsuitable for CT, but it should be used with caution in patients with a calcified annulus.
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the optimal measurements for patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) preferred for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), our study compared intraoperative sizing with five different approaches by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3DTEE) and computed tomography (CT). METHODS: We enrolled 104 BAV patients prescreened for TAVR but who underwent surgery with direct intraoperative annulus sizing. All five approaches [2DTTE, 3DTEE, area-derived perimeter (CTarea), perimeter-derived diameter (CTperi) and mean diameter (CTmean)] were compared with intraoperative sizing, respectively. Agreements on theoretical valve selections by five methods with those by intraoperative sizing were analyzed. RESULTS: CTarea showed the highest correlation (r = 0.932) and the best agreement with intraoperative sizing. Agreement for theoretical surgical and TAVR prosthesis selection was found in 84.6% and 74.0% BAVs by CTarea (κ = 0.791, κ = 0.585). CTperi-based prosthesis selection led to overestimation of 26.9% for surgical valves (κ = 0.589) and 36.5% for TAVR valves (κ = 0.425). Good correlations were observed between CT measurements and intraoperative sizing regardless of the predominant site of aortic valve calcification (r = 0.860-0.953). CONCLUSION: The CTarea, which demonstrated the optimal approach to annulus sizing and prosthesis choice of BAVs with high eccentricity, should be included into the BAV-specific annulus sizing recommendation. The insufficiency of CTperi lay in overestimation of surgical or TAVR valve selections. Good agreement of 3DTEE sizing proved its superiority in annulus sizing for BAVs unsuitable for CT, but it should be used with caution for patients with a calcified annulus, where partial acoustic shadowing could lead to image inaccuracy. KEY POINTS: • The area-derived perimeter by CT is the optimal approach to annulus sizing of BAVs. • The perimeter-derived approach is prone to overestimation of BAVs. • 3DTEE showed its superiority in annulus sizing for BAVs unsuitable for CT, but it should be used with caution in patients with a calcified annulus.
Authors: Polykarpos C Patsalis; Fadi Al-Rashid; Till Neumann; Björn Plicht; Heike A Hildebrandt; Daniel Wendt; Matthias Thielmann; Heinz G Jakob; Gerd Heusch; Raimund Erbel; Philipp Kahlert Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Gidon Y Perlman; Philipp Blanke; Danny Dvir; Gregor Pache; Thomas Modine; Marco Barbanti; Erik W Holy; Hendrik Treede; Philipp Ruile; Franz-Josef Neumann; Caterina Gandolfo; Francesco Saia; Corrado Tamburino; George Mak; Christopher Thompson; David Wood; Jonathon Leipsic; John G Webb Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2016-04-25 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Catherine M Otto; Dharam J Kumbhani; Karen P Alexander; John H Calhoon; Milind Y Desai; Sanjay Kaul; James C Lee; Carlos E Ruiz; Christina M Vassileva Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael J Mack; Martin B Leon; Craig R Smith; D Craig Miller; Jeffrey W Moses; E Murat Tuzcu; John G Webb; Pamela S Douglas; William N Anderson; Eugene H Blackstone; Susheel K Kodali; Raj R Makkar; Gregory P Fontana; Samir Kapadia; Joseph Bavaria; Rebecca T Hahn; Vinod H Thourani; Vasilis Babaliaros; Augusto Pichard; Howard C Herrmann; David L Brown; Mathew Williams; Jodi Akin; Michael J Davidson; Lars G Svensson Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-03-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Tomaz Podlesnikar; Edgard A Prihadi; Philippe J van Rosendael; E Mara Vollema; Frank van der Kley; Arend de Weger; Nina Ajmone Marsan; Franjo Naji; Zlatko Fras; Jeroen J Bax; Victoria Delgado Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Johannes Rixe; Annika Schuhbaeck; Christoph Liebetrau; Helge Moellmann; Holger M Nef; Sebastian Szardien; Roland Brandt; Joern Schmitt; Thomas Neumann; Christian Schneider; Gabriele Krombach; Christian W Hamm; Stephan Achenbach; Andreas Rolf Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Tomas Jurencak; Jakub Turek; Bastiaan L J H Kietselaer; Casper Mihl; Madeleine Kok; Vincent G V A van Ommen; Leen A F M van Garsse; Estelle C Nijssen; Joachim E Wildberger; Marco Das Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 5.315