AI Article Synopsis
- Researchers assessed the accuracy of two multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) methods—manual multiplanar reformations (MR) and semiautomatic optimal angle graph (OAG)—in predicting valve deployment angles during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).
- A study of 101 patients found significant differences between predicted and actual angles, with 42% showing more than a 5% deviation in one angle type, and 58% in another.
- While the MR method was more accurate for cranial/caudal angles, the OAG method performed better for right anterior oblique/left anterior oblique angles, indicating a need for improved prediction techniques in MDCT for TAVR.
Article Abstract
Background: Multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) predicted orthogonal projection angles have been introduced to guide valve deployment during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Our aim was to investigate the accuracy of MDCT prediction methods versus actual angiographic deployment angles.
Methods: Retrospective analysis of 2 currently used MDCT methods: manual multiplanar reformations (MR) and the semiautomatic optimal angle graph (OAG). Paired analysis was used to compare the 2-dimensional distributions and means.
Results: We included 101 patients with a mean (±SD) age of 81 ± 9 years. The MR and OAG methods were used in 46 and 55 patients, respectively. A ≥5% change from the predicted MDCT range in left anterior oblique/right anterior oblique (LAO/RAO) and the cranial/caudal (CRA/CAU) angle occurred in 42% and 58% of patients, respectively. The mean predicted versus actual deployment angles were significantly different (CRA/CAU: -2.6 ± 11.5 vs. -7.6 ± 10.7, p < 0.001; RAO/LAO 8.1 ± 10.9 vs. 9.5 ± 10.6, p = 0.048; respectively). The MR method resulted in a more accurate CRA/CAU angle (CRA/CAU: -4.6 ± 11.1 vs. -6.5 ± 11.8, p = 0.139; RAO/LAO 7.4 ± 11.2 vs. 10.4 ± 11.2, p = 0.008; respectively), whereas the use of the OAG resulted in a more accurate RAO/LAO angle (CRA/CAU: -0.9 ± 10.8 vs. -9±11.2, p < 0.001; RAO/LAO 9.05 ± 10.6 vs. 8.5 ± 9.9, p = 0.458; respectively). For the entire cohort, the 2-dimensional distributions and means of the predicted versus the actual angles were significantly different from each other (p < 0.001). We repeated our analysis using both MDCT methods and demonstrated similar results with each method.
Conclusions: Currently used MDCT methods for TAVR implantation angles are significantly modified before actual valve deployment. Thus, further refinement of these prediction methods is required.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2018.05.017 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!