NetForum uses cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use the site, we'll assume that you are happy to receive these cookies on the NetForum website. Read about our cookies.
NetForum Community
Learn. Share. Optimize.
Log in | Sign up now | Submit content | Contact
Go to similar content

Accuracy of predicted orthogonal projection angles for valve deployment during transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Philips CT Clinical Science Philips Healthcare • USA

Steinvil A, Weissman G, Ertel AW, Weigold G, Rogers T, Koifman E, Buchanan KD, Shults C, Torguson R, Okubagzi PG, Satler LF, Ben-Dor I, Waksman R.

* This article originally appeared in the September - October edition of the Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.
Multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) predicted orthogonal projection angles have been introduced to guide valve deployment during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Our aim was to investigate the accuracy of MDCT prediction methods versus actual angiographic deployment angles.

Retrospective analysis of two currently used MDCT methods: Manual multiplanar reformations (MR) and the semiautomatic optimal angle graph (OAG). Paired analysis was used to compare the 2-dimensional distributions and means.

We included 101 patients with a mean (±SD) age of 81 ± 9 years. The MR and OAG methods were used in 46 and 55 patients, respectively. A ≥ 5% change from the predicted MDCT range in left anterior oblique/right anterior oblique (LAO/RAO) and the cranial/caudal (CRA/CAU) angle occurred in 42% and 58% of patients, respectively. The mean predicted versus actual deployment angles were significantly different (CRA/CAU: -2.6 ± 11.5 vs. -7.6 ± 10.7, p < 0.001; RAO/LAO 8.1 ± 10.9 vs. 9.5 ± 10.6, p=0.048; respectively). The MR method resulted in a more accurate CRA/CAU angle (CRA/CAU: -4.6 ± 11.1 vs. -6.5 ± 11.8, p=0.139; RAO/LAO 7.4 ± 11.2 vs. 10.4 ± 11.2, p=0.008; respectively), whereas the use of the OAG resulted in a more accurate RAO/LAO angle (CRA/CAU: -0.9 ± 10.8 vs. -9 ± 11.2, p < 0.001; RAO/LAO 9.05 ± 10.6 vs. 8.5 ± 9.9, p=0.458; respectively). For the entire cohort, the 2-dimensional distributions and means of the predicted versus the actual angles were significantly different from each other (p < 0.001). We repeated our analysis using both MDCT methods and demonstrated similar results with each method.

Currently used MDCT methods for TAVR implantation angles are significantly modified before actual valve deployment. Thus, further refinement of these prediction methods is required.
For more information about this publication, check out the PubMed listing for this article.

This content has been made possible by NetForum Community.
Share this on: Share your link in twitter Share your link in facebook Share your link on LinkedIn Print Rate this article: Log in to vote

Oct 31, 2018

Rate this:
Log in to vote

aorta, Cardiac, coronary angiography, Interventional, retrospective, stenosis, TAVI, TAVR, Vascular

Clinical News
Best Practices
Case Studies
Publications and Abstracts
White Papers
Web seminars and Presentations
Application Tips and FAQ
Try an Application
Business News
Case Studies
White Papers
Web Seminars and Presentations
Utilization Services
Contributing Professionals
Contributing Institutions
Become a Contributor