Literature DB >> 32355649

Focus on the annuloplasty in aortic valve repair: implications from a quantitative multislice computed tomography analysis.

Niklas Neumann1, Johannes Petersen1, Christoph Sinning2, Tatiana Sequeira-Gross1, Niklas Schofer2, Hermann Reichenspurner1, Evaldas Girdauskas1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve (AV) repair has evolved towards a treatment alternative in young patients with AV regurgitation and was accompanied by the development of surgical repair strategies. An efficient and reproducible AV annulus stabilization (i.e., annuloplasty) has been proposed as a crucial component to obtain the long-term stability of AV repair. However, there is still major controversy regarding the most appropriate annuloplasty approach. We aimed to address AV annulus structures which are relevant for AV annuloplasty, based on MS-CT data.
METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 326 consecutive patients with AV disease who all underwent preprocedural MS-CT examination. Study cohort was subdivided according to the underlying AV pathology: 25 patients with aortic regurgitation (AR subgroup) (mean age 73±11 years, 68% male), 243 patients with aortic stenosis (AS subgroup) (73±11 years, 68% male) and 58 patients with normally functioning AV (normal AV subgroup) (mean age 76±7 years, 36% male). We systematically measured maximum and minimum AV annulus diameter, AV annular area, projected AV annular perimeter and anatomic AV annular perimeter during mid-systole using MS-CT data. Based on these measurements, AV annular eccentricity index was calculated [(max AV annulus × 100/min AV annulus) - 100]. Furthermore, we assessed the tissue components of AV annular plane, distinguishing between muscular and fibrous portions of the basal ring.
RESULTS: AV annular eccentricity index was significantly larger in the normal AV-subgroup as compared to the AR-subgroup (33.2%±10.7% vs. 27.8%±9.2%; P=0.048) as well as to the AS-subgroup (33.2%±10.7% vs. 20.4%±8.8%; P<0.001). AV annular area was significantly larger in the AR subgroup as compared to the AS subgroup (5.7±1.0 vs. 5.1±0.8 cm2; P=0.003) and normal AV subgroup (5.7±1.0 vs. 4.8±0.8 cm2; P<0.001). Intramuscular plane in the right coronary sinus was significantly increased in the AR subgroup vs. AS subgroup (12.8±2.7 vs. 7.5±3.6 mm; P<0.001) and normal AV subgroup (12.8±2.7 vs. 8.7±3.0 mm; P<0.001). Muscular component of the basal ring was significantly reduced in the AR subgroup vs. AS subgroup (37.5%±5.1% vs. 40.5%±5.5%; P=0.039) and normal AV subgroup (37.5%±5.1% vs. 44.3%±10.2%; P=0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: MS-CT enables a quantitative analysis of aortic root anatomy which may have an impact on AV annuloplasty. AR patients differ significantly regarding their AV annular dimensions and basal ring morphology as compared to the AS patients and those with a normal AV function. These findings may have major implications in tricuspid AV repair when designing the most appropriate AV annulus stabilisation technique. 2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aortic valve (AV); annuloplasty; aortic valve repair; multislice computed tomography

Year:  2020        PMID: 32355649      PMCID: PMC7188605          DOI: 10.21037/qims.2020.03.16

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg        ISSN: 2223-4306


  15 in total

1.  Aortic valve and aortic root features in CT angiography in patients considered for aortic valve repair.

Authors:  Madelien V Regeer; Vasileios Kamperidis; Michel I M Versteegh; Robert J M Klautz; Arthur J H A Scholte; Jeroen J Bax; Martin J Schalij; Nina Ajmone Marsan; Victoria Delgado
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr       Date:  2014-06-27

Review 2.  Structure and anatomy of the aortic root.

Authors:  Siew Yen Ho
Journal:  Eur J Echocardiogr       Date:  2009-01

3.  Aortic valve repair and aortic valve-sparing operations.

Authors:  Tirone E David
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 5.209

Review 4.  Aortic valve repair update.

Authors:  Tatsuhiko Komiya
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2015-02-05

5.  Surgical anatomy of the aortic annulus: landmarks for external annuloplasty in aortic valve repair.

Authors:  Nizar Khelil; Ghassan Sleilaty; Michele Palladino; Mahmoud Fouda; Remi Escande; Mathieu Debauchez; Isabelle Di Centa; Emmanuel Lansac
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 4.330

6.  Aortic annuloplasty: The panacea of valve-preserving aortic replacement?

Authors:  Hans-Joachim Schäfers
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 5.209

7.  The surgical anatomy of the aortic root.

Authors:  Robert H Anderson
Journal:  Multimed Man Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2007-01-01

Review 8.  Reported Outcome After Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement for Aortic Root Aneurysm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Bardia Arabkhani; Aart Mookhoek; Isabelle Di Centa; Emmanuel Lansac; Jos A Bekkers; Rob De Lind Van Wijngaarden; Ad J J C Bogers; Johanna J M Takkenberg
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2015-07-28       Impact factor: 4.330

9.  Computed Tomography for Structural Heart Disease and Interventions.

Authors:  Pascal Thériault-Lauzier; Marco Spaziano; Beatriz Vaquerizo; Jean Buithieu; Giuseppe Martucci; Nicolo Piazza
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2015-09

Review 10.  The role of echocardiography and CT angiography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation patients.

Authors:  Emmanouil Chourdakis; Ioanna Koniari; Nicholas G Kounis; Dimitrios Velissaris; Nikolaos Koutsogiannis; Grigorios Tsigkas; Karl Eugen Hauptmann; Bruno Sontag; George Hahalis
Journal:  J Geriatr Cardiol       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 3.327

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.