Aortic annulus and ascending aorta: Comparison of preoperative and periooperative measurement in patients with aortic stenosis

Šmíd, Michal; Ferda, Jiří; Baxa, Jan; Cech, J; Hájek, Tomáš; Kreuzberg, Boris; Rokyta, R

doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.01.028

Cited by 30 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Intra‐ and interobserver variability were better with CMR. These findings confirm several studies in other patient populations . However, in patients with an aortic aneurysm >40 mm, the correlation and agreement between both imaging modalities were worse, especially at the level of the proximal ascending aorta.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Ascending Aortic Diameters in Congenital Aortic Stenosis: Cardiac Magnetic Resonance versus Transthoracic Echocardiography

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Ascending Aortic Diameters in Congenital Aortic Stenosis: Cardiac Magnetic Resonance versus Transthoracic Echocardiography

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A prosthesis selection solely on the basis of a 2 D TEE measurement of the aortic annulus can underestimate the actual size [23,28] and is associated with an increased rate Fig. 2 Deformation of the ovaloid aortic annulus shape during the cardiac cycle.…”

Section: Aortic Root Measuring the Aortic Annulusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of Preprocedural Computed Tomography in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Lehmkuhl

Foldyna

Haensig

et al. 2013

Fortschr Röntgenstr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is currently considered an acceptable alternative for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis and a high perioperative risk or a contraindication for open surgery. The benefit of TAVI significantly outweighs the risk of the procedure in patients requiring treatment that are not suitable for open surgery, and leads to a lower mortality in the one-year follow-up.?The absence of a direct view of the aortic root and valve remains a challenge for the transcatheter approach. While direct inspection of the aortic valve during open surgery allows an adequate prosthesis choice, it is crucial for TAVI to know the individual anatomical details prior to the procedure in order to assure adequate planning of the procedure and proper prosthesis choice and patient selection. Among the imaging modalities available for the evaluation of patients prior to TAVI, computed tomography (CT) plays a central role in patient selection. CT reliably visualizes the dimensions of the aortic root and allows a proper choice of the prosthesis size. The morphology of the access path and relevant comorbidities can be assessed. The present review summarizes the current state of knowledge regarding the value of CT in the evaluation of patients prior to TAVI. Key Points: Citation Format:

show abstract

“…This process most likely introduces error because the aortic annulus diameter size is constantly changing in the software, resulting in a large margin of error. Smid M et al 21) had described that magnetic resonance imaging had been found to be a most precise technique to measure the aortic valve annulus diameter. Others 6,12,14,19,20) describe the other view from MDCT as useful to measure the diameter.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aortic Annulus Diameter Measurement: What Is the Best Modality?

Yano

Nakamura

Nagahama

et al. 2012

ATCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to clarify the most suitable method to measure the aortic annulus diameter. Patients and Methods: Fifty-five patients, who had undergone aortic valve replacement at Miyazaki University Hospital between April 2008 and May 2011, were included in this study. The maximum diameter of the sizing tool that could be inserted into the left ventricle through the annulus had been predicted, based on the diameter measured by each modality. Agreement with surgery and each imaging modality, namely transthoracic echocardiography, multidetector computed tomography and contrast angiography, were compared using Bland-Altman analysis. Results: The predicted aortic annulus diameter, based on the diameter measured by transthoracic echocardiography, multidetector computed tomography and contrast angiography, was 20.3 ± 2.50, 23.9 ± 3.19, and 23.5 ± 3.55 mm, respectively, whereas, the diameter measured at surgery was 23.7 ± 2.99 mm. Predicted aortic annulus diameter measured by multidetector computed tomography best agreed with that measured at surgery. Conclusion: We conclude that the aortic annulus diameter, measured by multidetector computed tomography, is the best modality to measure the aortic annulus diameter.

show abstract

Aortic annulus and ascending aorta: Comparison of preoperative and periooperative measurement in patients with aortic stenosis

Cited by 30 publications

References 9 publications

Ascending Aortic Diameters in Congenital Aortic Stenosis: Cardiac Magnetic Resonance versus Transthoracic Echocardiography

Ascending Aortic Diameters in Congenital Aortic Stenosis: Cardiac Magnetic Resonance versus Transthoracic Echocardiography

Role of Preprocedural Computed Tomography in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Aortic Annulus Diameter Measurement: What Is the Best Modality?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About