Differences in clinical valve size selection and valve size selection for patient-specific computer simulation in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR): a retrospective multicenter analysis

被引:0
作者
Nahid El Faquir
Giorgia Rocatello
Zouhair Rahhab
Johan Bosmans
Ole De Backer
Nicolas M. Van Mieghem
Peter Mortier
Peter P. T. de Jaegere
机构
[1] Erasmus Medical Center,Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter
[2] IBiTech-bioMMeda,Department of Cardiology
[3] Ghent University,Department of Cardiology
[4] University Hospital Antwerp,undefined
[5] Rigshospitalet University Hospital,undefined
[6] FEops NV,undefined
来源
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging | 2020年 / 36卷
关键词
Aortic stenosis; TAVR; Computer simulation;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Valve size selection for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is currently based on cardiac CT-scan. At variance with patient-specific computer simulation, this does not allow the assessment of the valve-host interaction. We aimed to compare clinical valve size selection and valve size selection by an independent expert for computer simulation. A multicenter retrospective analysis of valve size selection by the physician and the independent expert in 141 patients who underwent TAVR with the self-expanding CoreValve or Evolut R. Baseline CT-scan was used for clinical valve size selection and for patient-specific computer simulation. Simulation results were not available for clinical use. Overall true concordance between clinical and simulated valve size selection was observed in 47 patients (33%), true discordance in 15 (11%) and ambiguity in 79 (56%). In 62 (44%, cohort A) one valve size was simulated whereas two valve sizes were simulated in 79 (56%, cohort B). In cohort A, concordance was 76% and discordance was 24%; a smaller valve size was selected for simulation in 10 patients and a larger in 5. In cohort B, a different valve size was selected for simulation in all patients in addition to the valve size that was used for TAVR. The different valve size concerned a smaller valve in 45 patients (57%) and a larger in 34 (43%). Selection of the valve size differs between the physician and the independent computer simulation expert who used the same source of information. These findings indicate that valve sizing in TAVR is still more intricate than generally assumed.
引用
收藏
页码:123 / 129
页数:6
相关论文
共 318 条
  • [1] Smith CR(2011)Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients N Engl J Med 364 2187-2198
  • [2] Leon MB(2012)Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement N Engl J Med 366 1686-1695
  • [3] Mack MJ(2010)Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery N Engl J Med 363 1597-1607
  • [4] Miller DC(2012)Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement for inoperable severe aortic stenosis N Engl J Med 366 1696-1704
  • [5] Moses JW(2016)Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients N Engl J Med 374 1609-1620
  • [6] Svensson LG(2017)Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients N Engl J Med 376 1321-1331
  • [7] Tuzcu EM(2017)Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with new-generation devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis Int J Cardiol 15 83-89
  • [8] Webb JG(2014)Selection of TAVI prostheses: do we really have the CHOICE? EuroIntervention 10 U28-U34
  • [9] Fontana GP(2017)2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease Eur Heart J 38 2739-2791
  • [10] Makkar RR(2016)Patient-specific image-based computer simulation for the prediction of valve morphology and calcium displacement after TAVI with the medtronic CoreValve and the Edwards SAPIEN valve EuroIntervention 11 1044-1052