COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Erroneous measurement of the aortic annular diameter using 2-dimensional echocardiography resulting in inappropriate CoreValve size selection: a retrospective comparison with multislice computed tomography.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the differential adherence to transcatheter heart valve (THV)-oversizing principles between transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and multislice computed tomography (CT) and its impact on the incidence of paravalvular leak (PVL).

BACKGROUND: CT has emerged as an alternative to 2-dimensional TEE for THV sizing.

METHODS: In our early experience, TEE-derived aortic annular diameters determined THV size selection. CT datasets originally obtained for vascular screening were retrospectively interrogated to determine CT-derived annular diameters. Annular dimensions and expected THV oversizing were compared between TEE and CT. The incidence of PVL was correlated to TEE- and CT-based oversizing calculations.

RESULTS: Using TEE-derived annulus measurements, 157 patients underwent CoreValve implantation (23 mm: n = 66; 29 mm: n = 91). The estimated THV oversizing on the basis of TEE was 20.1 ± 8.2%. Retrospective CT analysis yielded larger annular diameters than TEE (p < 0.0001). When these CT diameters were used to recalculate the percentage of oversizing achieved with the TEE-selected CoreValve, the actual THV oversizing was only 10.4 ± 7.8%. Consequently, CT analysis suggested that up to 50% of patients received an inappropriate CoreValve size. When CT-based sizing criteria were satisfied, the incidence of PVL was 21% lower than that with echocardiography (14% vs. 35%; p = 0.003). Adherence to CT-based oversizing was independently associated with a reduced incidence of PVL (odds ratio 0.36; 95% confidence interval: 0.14 to 0.90; p = 0.029); adherence to TEE-based sizing was not.

CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective CT-based annular analysis revealed that CoreValve size selection by TEE was incorrect in 50% of patients. The percentage of oversizing with CT was one-half of that calculated with TEE resulting in the majority of patients receiving a THV that was too small.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app