Cinefluoroscopy for assessment of mechanical heart valves with suspected dysfunction

Background Mechanical heart valves (MHVs) are preferred prosthesis types in many, especially younger patients who need surgical valve replacement. Although echocardiography is most frequently performed for prosthesis assessment during follow-up, ultrasound artifacts usually preclude a precise investigation of prosthesis function. Cinefluoroscopy (CF) is a simple and effective method to analyze and quantify opening and closing of prosthesis leaflets but requires careful visualization of the valve using optimal viewing angles. Here, we investigated the quality of CF studies in clinical routine and their suitability for quantitative analysis of prosthesis function. Methods and results We retrospectively identified 94 patients with 118 cinefluoroscopies performed by 31 different investigators in one tertiary center from 2012 to 2021. Of 150 MHVs (98% bi-leaflet prostheses), 87 (58%) were aortic, 53 (34%) mitral, 7 (5%) tricuspid, and 5 (3%) pulmonary valve prostheses, respectively. CF studies were categorized by their suitability to quantitatively assess opening and closing angles. Visualization of valve function was “sufficient” in 23%, “suboptimal” in 46%, and “unsuitable” in 31% of the cases. Conclusion In clinical routine, only one-fourth of CF studies allow for a complete assessment of leaflet motion of MHVs. Although this may be in part due to the varying experience of operators, the high number of unsuitable studies suggests that optimal viewing angles may not be achievable in all patients. Further research is required to investigate standard viewing angles and anatomy after MHV implantation to improve the quality of CF studies and reduce radiation exposure of patients and operators.

[1]  B. Prendergast,et al.  2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. , 2021, European heart journal.

[2]  A. Markewitz,et al.  German Heart Surgery Report 2020: The Annual Updated Registry of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery , 2021, The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon.

[3]  Hauser Jm,et al.  Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement , 2020 .

[4]  K. Anstrom,et al.  Rationale and design of PROACT Xa: A randomized, multicenter, open-label, clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apixaban versus warfarin in patients with a mechanical On-X Aortic Heart Valve. , 2020, American heart journal.

[5]  J. Leipsic,et al.  Optimal Fluoroscopic Projections of Coronary Ostia and Bifurcations Defined by Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography. , 2020, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[6]  R. De Paulis,et al.  Surgical anatomy of the aortic valve and root—implications for valve repair , 2019, ASVIDE.

[7]  R. De Paulis,et al.  Surgical anatomy of the aortic valve and root-implications for valve repair. , 2019, Annals of cardiothoracic surgery.

[8]  M. Baiocchi,et al.  Mechanical or Biologic Prostheses for Aortic‐Valve and Mitral‐Valve Replacement , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  J. Zamorano,et al.  Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Inter-American Society of Echocardiography, and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging. , 2016, European heart journal cardiovascular Imaging.

[10]  Wei-Guo Ma,et al.  Dysfunction of mechanical heart valve prosthesis: experience with surgical management in 48 patients. , 2015, Journal of thoracic disease.

[11]  B. Bijnens,et al.  Changes in Right Ventricular Shape and Deformation Following Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery—Insights from Echocardiography with Strain Rate and Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2015, Echocardiography.

[12]  H. Lee,et al.  Measurement of Opening and Closing Angles of Aortic Valve Prostheses In Vivo Using Dual-Source Computed Tomography: Comparison with Those of Manufacturers' in 10 Different Types , 2015, Korean journal of radiology.

[13]  Jennifer Taylor,et al.  ESC/EACTS Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease. , 2012, European heart journal.

[14]  Eugenio Picano,et al.  The Radiation Issue in Cardiology: the time for action is now , 2011, Cardiovascular ultrasound.

[15]  Bijoy K Khandheria,et al.  Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Card , 2009, Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography.

[16]  R. Khouzam Cinefluoroscopy as the gold standard for mechanical valve mobility. , 2007, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[17]  J. Lax,et al.  Cinefluoroscopic assessment of mechanical disc prostheses: its value as a complementary method to echocardiography. , 2005, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[18]  J. Dunning,et al.  Aortic valve surgery: marked increases in volume and significant decreases in mechanical valve use--an analysis of 41,227 patients over 5 years from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland National database. , 2011, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[19]  Mark S Seigel The time for action is now! , 2004, Maryland medicine : MM : a publication of MEDCHI, the Maryland State Medical Society.