Manual, semiautomated, and fully automated measurement of the aortic annulus for planning of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR/TAVI): analysis of interchangeability.

BACKGROUND Preprocedural 3-dimensional CT imaging of the aortic annular plane plays a critical role for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) planning; however, manual reconstructions are complex. Automated analysis software may improve reproducibility and agreement between readers but is incompletely validated. METHODS In 110 TAVR patients (mean age, 81 years; 37% female) undergoing preprocedural multidetector CT, automated reconstruction of the aortic annular plane and planimetry of the annulus was performed with a prototype of now commercially available software (syngo.CT Cardiac Function-Valve Pilot; Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany). Fully automated, semiautomated, and manual annulus measurements were compared. Intrareader and inter-reader agreement, intermodality agreement, and interchangeability were analyzed. Finally, the impact of these measurements on recommended valve size was evaluated. RESULTS Semiautomated analysis required major correction in 5 patients (4.5%). In the remaining 95.5%, only minor correction was performed. Mean manual annulus area was significantly smaller than fully automated results (P < .001 for both readers) but similar to semiautomated measurements (5.0 vs 5.4 vs 4.9 cm(2), respectively). The frequency of concordant recommendations for valve size increased if manual analysis was replaced with the semiautomated method (60% agreement was improved to 82.4%; 95% confidence interval for the difference [69.1%-83.4%]). CONCLUSIONS Semiautomated aortic annulus analysis, with minor correction by the user, provides reliable results in the context of TAVR annulus evaluation.

[1]  S. Achenbach,et al.  SCCT expert consensus document on computed tomography imaging before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). , 2012, Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography.

[2]  P. Wenaweser,et al.  Accuracy and reproducibility of aortic annulus sizing using a dedicated three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction tool in patients evaluated for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. , 2014, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[3]  Paul Schoenhagen,et al.  Aortic root morphology in patients undergoing percutaneous aortic valve replacement: evidence of aortic root remodeling. , 2009, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[4]  Michael J. Mack,et al.  Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  J. Leipsic,et al.  The impact of integration of a multidetector computed tomography annulus area sizing algorithm on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a prospective, multicenter, controlled trial. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  N. Obuchowski.  Can electronic medical images replace hard‐copy film? Defining and testing the equivalence of diagnostic tests , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  S. Achenbach,et al.  3-dimensional aortic annular assessment by multidetector computed tomography predicts moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a multicenter retrospective analysis. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  M. Mack,et al.  Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. , 2012, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[9]  Fabien Hyafil,et al.  Multimodal assessment of the aortic annulus diameter: implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  Jörg Hausleiter,et al.  Computed tomography in the evaluation for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). , 2011, Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy.

[11]  S. Pocock,et al.  Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  G. W. Snedecor.  Statistical Methods , 1964 .

[13]  Adnan Kastrati,et al.  Standardized imaging for aortic annular sizing: implications for transcatheter valve selection. , 2013, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[14]  G. Feuchtner,et al.  Anatomical and Procedural Features Associated With Aortic Root Rupture During Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement , 2013, Circulation.

[15]  W. O’Neill,et al.  Assessment of a novel software tool in the selection of aortic valve prosthesis size for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. , 2014, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[16]  E. Tuzcu,et al.  Characterization and outcome of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis referred for percutaneous aortic valve replacement. , 2009, Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery.

[17]  S. Halliburton,et al.  Prospective ECG-triggered, axial 4-D imaging of the aortic root, valvular, and left ventricular structures: a lower radiation dose option for preprocedural TAVR imaging. , 2012, Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography.

[18]  Pascal Vranckx,et al.  Standardized endpoint definitions for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation clinical trials: a consensus report from the Valve Academic Research Consortium. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[19]  M. Langer,et al.  Semiautomated quantification of aortic annulus dimensions on cardiac CT for TAVR. , 2014, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[20]  Marcel Zeelenberg,et al.  Data analysis 2 , 2016 .

[21]  S. Halliburton,et al.  Three-dimensional imaging in the context of minimally invasive and transcatheter cardiovascular interventions using multi-detector computed tomography: from pre-operative planning to intra-operative guidance. , 2010, European heart journal.