Three dimensional evaluation of the aortic annulus using multislice computer tomography: are manufacturer's guidelines for sizing for percutaneous aortic valve replacement helpful?

Abstract

Aims

To evaluate the effects of applying current sizing guidelines to different multislice computer tomography (MSCT) aortic annulus measurements on Corevalve (CRS) size selection.

Methods and results

Multislice computer tomography annulus diameters [minimum: D_min; maximum: D_max; mean: D_mean = (D_min + D_max)/2; mean from circumference: D_circ; mean from surface area: D_CSA] were measured in 75 patients referred for percutaneous valve replacement. Fifty patients subsequently received a CRS (26 mm: n = 22; 29 mm: n = 28). D_min and D_max differed substantially [mean difference (95% CI) = 6.5 mm (5.7–7.2), P < 0.001]. If D_min were used for sizing 26% of 75 patients would be ineligible (annulus too small in 23%, too large in 3%), 48% would receive a 26 mm and 12% a 29 mm CRS. If D_max were used, 39% would be ineligible (all annuli too large), 4% would receive a 26 mm, and 52% a 29 mm CRS. Using D_mean, D_circ, or D_CSA most patients would receive a 29 mm CRS and 11, 16, and 9% would be ineligible. In 50 patients who received a CRS operator choice corresponded best with sizing based on D_CSA and D_mean (76%, 74%), but undersizing occurred in 20 and 22% of which half were ineligible (annulus too large).

Conclusion

Eligibility varied substantially depending on the sizing criterion. In clinical practice both under- and oversizing were common. Industry guidelines should recognize the oval shape of the aortic annulus.

Percutaneous, Transcutaneous, Aortic valve, Sizing, Aortic root