Volume 76, Issue 4 pp. 602-607
Valvular and Structural Heart Diseases

Optimal projection estimation for transcatheter aortic valve implantation based on contrast-aortography

Validation of a Prototype Software

Apostolos Tzikas MD

Apostolos Tzikas MD

Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Carl Schultz MD, PhD

Carl Schultz MD, PhD

Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Nicolas M. Van Mieghem MD

Nicolas M. Van Mieghem MD

Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Peter P.T. de Jaegere MD, PhD

Peter P.T. de Jaegere MD, PhD

Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Patrick W. Serruys MD, PhD

Corresponding Author

Patrick W. Serruys MD, PhD

Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Department of Cardiology, Erasmus MC, Room Ba583a, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this author
First published: 07 July 2010
Citations: 48

Conflict of interest: The authors of the present manuscript have no relevant disclosures.

Abstract

We investigate the accuracy of a new software system (C-THV, Paieon) designed to calculate the optimal projection (OP) view for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) based on two aortograms, and its agreement with the operator's choice. An optimal fluoroscopic working view projection with all three aortic cusps depicted in one line, is crucial during TAVI. In our institution selection of the OP is based on multislice computed tomography (MSCT). Seventy-three consecutive patients referred for TAVI were divided into two groups. For the first group (53 patients, retrospective cohort) we compared the OP views estimated by C-THV with the ones estimated by MSCT. For the second group (20 patients, prospective cohort), we compared the OP views estimated by C-THV with the operator's choice during TAVI. For the retrospective cohort, the mean absolute difference (mean ± SD) between C-THV and MSCT was 6.6 ± 4.9 degrees. In 77% of the cases the mean difference between C-THV and MSCT was <10 degrees. For the prospective cohort, the mean absolute difference (mean ± SD) between C-THV and the operator's choice was 5.5 ± 3.4 degrees. A mean difference of <10 degrees was found in 90% of the cases. In this study we found that the C-THV software estimated the OP view for TAVI with good accuracy. The level of agreement between C-THV and either the MSCT or the operator's choice was deemed satisfactory, with the vast majority of observed differences being <10 degrees. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.