Aortic Annular Sizing for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using Cross-sectional 3-dimensional Transesophageal Echocardiography
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Objectives: This study compared cross-sectional three-dimensional (3D) transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) to two-dimensional (2D) TEE as methods for predicting aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).
Background: Data have shown that TAVR sizing using cross-sectional contrast computed tomography (CT) parameters is superior to 2D-TEE for the prediction of paravalvular aortic regurgitation (AR). Three-dimensional TEE can offer cross-sectional assessment of the aortic annulus but its role for TAVR sizing has been poorly elucidated.
Methods: All patients had severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and were treated with balloon-expandable TAVR in a single center. Patients studied had both 2D-TEE and 3D imaging (contrast CT and/or 3D-TEE) of the aortic annulus at baseline. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were generated for each measurement parameter using post-TAVR paravalvular AR moderate or greater as the state variable.
Results: For the 256 patients studied, paravalvular AR moderate or greater occurred in 26 of 256 (10.2%) of patients. Prospectively recorded 2D-TEE measurements had a low discriminatory value (area under the curve = 0.52, 95% confidence interval: 0.40 to 0.63, p = 0.75). Average cross-sectional diameter by CT offered a high degree of discrimination (area under the curve = 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 0.90, p < 0.0001) and mean cross-sectional diameter by 3D-TEE was of intermediate value (area under the curve = 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.54 to 0.81, p = 0.036).
Conclusions: Cross-sectional 3D echocardiographic sizing of the aortic annulus dimension offers discrimination of post-TAVR paravalvular AR that is significantly superior to that of 2D-TEE. Cross-sectional data should be sought from 3D-TEE if good CT data are unavailable for TAVR sizing.
Elison D, Danek B, Johnson B, Chung C, Oyetunji S, Mackensen G J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2024; 3(9):102237.
PMID: 39575213 PMC: 11576374. DOI: 10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102237.
Albacker T, Tash A, Alamri H, Alasnag M, AlKashkari W, AlMutairi F J Saudi Heart Assoc. 2024; 36(2):184-231.
PMID: 39234557 PMC: 11373420. DOI: 10.37616/2212-5043.1379.
Choi J J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2024; 32(1):20.
PMID: 39098901 PMC: 11299346. DOI: 10.1186/s44348-024-00016-3.
de Agustin J, Pozo Osinalde E, Olmos C, Casado P, Marcos-Alberca P, Luaces M J Clin Med. 2023; 12(24).
PMID: 38137816 PMC: 10743683. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12247748.
Massie C, Parent M, Berthelot-Richer M, Kouz R, Palisaitis D, Le V Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023; 39(9):1707-1717.
PMID: 37572176 PMC: 10520092. DOI: 10.1007/s10554-023-02885-z.