Simulated Prosthesis Overlay for Patient-Specific Planning of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Procedures

Abstract

Objective

We tested the hypothesis that simulated three-dimensional prosthesis overlay procedure planning may support valve selection in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures.

Methods

Preoperative multidimensional computed tomography (MDCT) data sets from 81 consecutive TAVI patients were included in the study. A planning tool was developed, which semiautomatically creates a three-dimensional model of the aortic root from these data. Three-dimensional templates of the commonly used TAVI implants are spatially registered with the patient data and presented as graphic overlay. Fourteen physicians used the tool to perform retrospective planning of TAVI procedures. Results of prosthesis sizing were compared with the prosthesis size used in the actually performed procedure, and the patients were accordingly divided into three groups: those with equal size (concordance with retrospective planning), oversizing (retrospective planning of a smaller prosthesis), and undersizing (retrospective planning of a larger prosthesis).

Results

In the oversizing group, 85% of the patients had new pacemaker implantation. In the undersizing group, in 66%, at least mild paravalvular leakage was observed (greater than grade 1 in one third of the cases). In 46% of the patients in the equal-size group, neither of these complications was observed.

Conclusions

Three-dimensional prosthesis overlay in MDCT-derived patient data for patient-specific planning of TAVI procedures is feasible. It may improve valve selection compared with two-dimensional MDCT planning and thus yield better outcomes.

Keywords

Heart valve transapical approach Computed tomography imaging 3D modeling Transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Toggweiler

, Humphries

K.H.

, Lee

5-year outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61: 413–419

Gurvitch

, Webb

J.G.

, Yuan

Aortic annulus diameter determination by multidetector computed tomography: reproducibility, applicability, and implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4: 1235–1245.

Achenbach

, Delgado

, Hausleiter

, Schoenhagen

, Min

J.K.

, Leipsic

J.A.

SCCT expert consensus document on computed tomography imaging before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012; 6: 366–380.

Buzzatti

, Maisano

, Latib

Computed tomography-based evaluation of aortic annulus, prosthesis size and impact on early residual aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013; 43: 43–50.

Kodali

S.K.

, Williams

M.R.

, Smith

C.R.

Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 1686–1695.

Gessat

, Merk

D.R.

, Falk

System for Transapical Aortic Valve Implantation. Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging. 2009; 7261: E1–E12.

Jacobs

, Gessat

, Walther

, Falk

Three-dimensional template-based planning for transapical aortic valve implantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011; 141: 1541–1543.

Epstein

A.E.

, DiMarco

J.P.

, Ellenbogen

K.A.

2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update incorporated into the ACCF/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2013; 127: e283–e352.

Unbehaun

, Pasic

, Dreysse

Transapical aortic valve implantation: incidence and predictors of paravalvular leakage and transvalvular regurgitation in a series of 358 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59: 211–221.

10.

Ledwoch

, Franke

, Gerckens

; German Transcatheter Aortic Valve Interventions Registry Investigators. Incidence and predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: analysis from the German transcatheter aortic valve interventions registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 82: E569–E577.

11.

Erkapic

, De Rosa

, Kelava

Risk for permanent pacemaker after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a comprehensive analysis of the literature. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012; 23: 391–397.

12.

Saia

, Lemos

P.A.

, Bordoni

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a self-expanding nitinol bioprosthesis: prediction of the need for permanent pacemaker using simple baseline and procedural characteristics. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 79: 712–719.

13.

Nijhoff

, Agostoni

, Samim

Optimisation of transcatheter aortic balloon-expandable valve deployment: the two-step inflation technique. EuroIntervention. 2013; 9: 555–563.

14.

Urena

, Webb

J.G.

, Tamburino

Permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: impact on late clinical outcomes and left ventricular function. Circulation. 2014; 129: 1233–1243.

15.

Hoffmann

, Herpertz

, Lotfipour

Impact of a new conduction defect after transcatheter aortic valve implantation on left ventricular function. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5: 1257–1263.

16.

Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J. 2012; 33: 2451–2496.

17.

Jabbour

, Ismail

T.F.

, Moat

Multimodality imaging in transcatheter aortic valve implantation and post-procedural aortic regurgitation: comparison among cardiovascular magnetic resonance, cardiac computed tomography, and echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58: 2165–2173.

18.

Tzikas

, Schultz

C.J.

, Piazza

Assessment of the aortic annulus by multislice computed tomography, contrast aortography, and trans-thoracic echocardiography in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 77: 868–875.

19.

Lehmkuhl

L.H.

, von Aspern

, Foldyna

Comparison of aortic root measurements in patients undergoing transapical aortic valve implantation (TA-AVI) using three-dimensional rotational angiography (3D-RA) and multislice computed tomography (MSCT): differences and variability. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013; 29: 417–424.

20.

Khawaja

M.Z.

, Rajani

, Cook

Permanent pacemaker insertion after CoreValve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: incidence and contributing factors (the UK CoreValve Collaborative). Circulation. 2011; 123: 951–960.

21.

Tchetche

, Modine

, Farah

Update on the need for a permanent pacemaker after transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the CoreValve® Accutrak™ system. EuroIntervention. 2012; 8: 556–562.

22.

Kempfert

, Van Linden

, Lehmkuhl

Aortic annulus sizing: echocardiographic versus computed tomography derived measurements in comparison with direct surgical sizing. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012; 42: 627–633.