Computer-aided evaluation of low-dose and low-contrast agent third-generation dual-source CT angiography prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of computer-aided evaluation software for a comprehensive workup of patients prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using low-contrast agent and low radiation dose third-generation dual-source CT angiography.

Methods: We evaluated 30 consecutive patients scheduled for TAVI. All patients underwent ECG-triggered high-pitch dual-source CT angiography of the aortic root and aorta with a standardized contrast agent volume (30 ml Imeron350, flow rate 4 ml/s) and low-dose (100 kv/350 mAs) protocol. An expert (10 years of experience) manually evaluated aortic root and iliac access dimensions (distance between coronary ostia and aortic annulus, minimal/maximal diameters and area-derived diameter of the aortic annulus) and best CT-predicted fluoroscopic projection angle as the reference standard. Utilizing computer-aided software (syngo.via), the same pre-TAVI workup was performed and compared to the reference standard.

Results: Mean CTDI[Formula: see text] was 3.46 mGy and mean DLP 217.6 ± 12.1 mGy cm, corresponding to a mean effective dose of 3.7 ± 0.2 mSv. Computer-aided evaluation was successful in all but one patient. Compared to the reference standard, Bland-Altman analysis indicated very good agreement for the distances between aortic annulus and coronary ostia (RCA: mean difference 0.8 mm; 95 % CI 0.4-1.2 mm; LM: mean difference 0.9 mm; 95 % CI 0.5-1.3 mm); however, we demonstrated a systematic overestimation of annulus- derived diameter using the software (mean difference 44.4 mm[Formula: see text]; 95 % CI 30.4-58.3 mm[Formula: see text]). Based on respective annulus dimensions, the recommended prosthesis size (Edwards SAPIEN 3) matched in 26 out of the 29 patients (90 %). CT-derived fluoroscopic projection angles showed an excellent agreement for both methods. Out of 58 iliac arteries, 15 (25 %) arteries could not be segmented by the software. Preprocessing time of the software was 71 ± 11 s (range 51-96 s), and reading time with the software was 118 ± 31 s (range 68-201 s).

Conclusion: In the workup of pre-TAVI CT angiography, computer-aided evaluation of low-contrast, low-dose examinations is feasible with good agreement and quick reading time. However, a systematic overestimation of the aortic annulus area is observed.