AIMS: We sought to compare annular versus supra-annular sizing for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). METHODS AND RESULTS: In this retrospective single-centre analysis, we measured the aortic annulus (Ann) and intercommissural distance (ICD) on multidetector computed tomography scans in 217 BAV patients. With annular sizing being the default method for prosthesis size selection in all cases, we determined clinically relevant sizing errors and assessed the hypothetical impact of supra-annular sizing. Overall there was no significant difference between ICD and Ann (25.1 [23.5; 27.3] vs. 25.4 [23.6; 27.1] mm; p=0.24); intra-individually, ICD was similar to Ann in 26.7%, smaller in 40.1%, and larger in 33.2%. Annular sizing was appropriate in 96.3%, oversized in 0.5%, and undersized in 3.2% of cases. Supra-annular sizing would have resulted in a divergent size selection in 38.7% (smaller: 17.5%, larger: 19.8%, ICD out of range for TAVI prostheses: 1.4%) with potential improvement in a few cases with annular sizing errors, but potential worsening due to improper size selection in a much larger proportion of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Annular sizing for TAVI in BAV is feasible and safe. The added value of supra-annular sizing is questionable.
AIMS: We sought to compare annular versus supra-annular sizing for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). METHODS AND RESULTS: In this retrospective single-centre analysis, we measured the aortic annulus (Ann) and intercommissural distance (ICD) on multidetector computed tomography scans in 217 BAV patients. With annular sizing being the default method for prosthesis size selection in all cases, we determined clinically relevant sizing errors and assessed the hypothetical impact of supra-annular sizing. Overall there was no significant difference between ICD and Ann (25.1 [23.5; 27.3] vs. 25.4 [23.6; 27.1] mm; p=0.24); intra-individually, ICD was similar to Ann in 26.7%, smaller in 40.1%, and larger in 33.2%. Annular sizing was appropriate in 96.3%, oversized in 0.5%, and undersized in 3.2% of cases. Supra-annular sizing would have resulted in a divergent size selection in 38.7% (smaller: 17.5%, larger: 19.8%, ICD out of range for TAVI prostheses: 1.4%) with potential improvement in a few cases with annular sizing errors, but potential worsening due to improper size selection in a much larger proportion of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Annular sizing for TAVI in BAV is feasible and safe. The added value of supra-annular sizing is questionable.
Authors: Maren Weferling; Andreas Rolf; Ulrich Fischer-Rasokat; Christoph Liebetrau; Matthias Renker; Yeoung-Hoon Choi; Christian W Hamm; Damini Dey; Won-Keun Kim Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-12-26 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Piotr A Chodór; Krzysztof Wilczek; Karolina Chodór-Rozwadowska; Roman Przybylski; Jan Głowacki; Tomasz Niklewski; Łukasz Włoch; Mariusz Gąsior; Marian Zembala; Zbigniew Kalarus Journal: Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej Date: 2021-03-27 Impact factor: 1.426
Authors: Nils Perrin; Réda Ibrahim; Nicolas Dürrleman; Arsène Basmadjian; Lionel Leroux; Philippe Demers; Thomas Modine; Walid Ben Ali Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-02-08
Authors: Ahmed Elkoumy; John Jose; Christian J Terkelsen; Henrik Nissen; Sengottuvelu Gunasekaran; Mahmoud Abdelshafy; Ashok Seth; Hesham Elzomor; Sreenivas Kumar; Francesco Bedogni; Alfonso Ielasi; Santosh K Dora; Sharad Chandra; Keyur Parikh; Daniel Unic; William Wijns; Andreas Baumbach; Darren Mylotte; Patrick Serruys; Osama Soliman Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 4.241