Cargando…

Aortic root evaluation prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation—Correlation of manual and semi-automatic measurements

BACKGROUND: Pre-procedural TAVI planning requires highly sophisticated and time-consuming manual measurements performed by experienced readers. Semi-automatic software may assist with partial automation of assessment of multiple parameters. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences between m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Horehledova, Barbora, Mihl, Casper, Schwemmer, Chris, Hendriks, Babs M. F., Eijsvoogel, Nienke G., Kietselaer, Bastiaan L. J. H., Wildberger, Joachim E., Das, Marco
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6023104/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29953507
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199732
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Pre-procedural TAVI planning requires highly sophisticated and time-consuming manual measurements performed by experienced readers. Semi-automatic software may assist with partial automation of assessment of multiple parameters. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences between manual and semi-automatic measurements in terms of agreement and time. METHODS: One hundred and twenty TAVI candidates referred for the retrospectively ECG-gated CTA (2(nd) and 3(rd) generation dual source CT) were evaluated. Fully manual and semi-automatic measurements of fourteen aortic root parameters were assessed in the 20% phase of the R-R interval. Reading time was compared using paired samples t-test. Inter-software agreement was calculated using the Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in a 2-way mixed effects model. Differences between manual and semi-automatic measurements were evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: The time needed for evaluation using semi-automatic assessment (3 min 24 s ± 1 min 7 s) was significantly lower (p<0.001) compared to a fully manual approach (6 min 31 sec ± 1 min 1 sec). Excellent inter-software agreement was found (ICC = 0.93 ± 0.0; range:0.90–0.95). The same prosthesis size from manual and semi-automatic measurements was selected in 92% of cases, when sizing was based on annular area. Prosthesis sizing based on annular short diameter and perimeter agreed in 99% and 96% cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: Use of semi-automatic software in pre-TAVI evaluation results in comparable results in respect of measurements and selected valve prosthesis size, while necessary reading time is significantly lower.