Impact of the Aortic Geometry on TAVI Prosthesis Positioning Using Self-Expanding Valves
by
,
Philipp Breitbart
1,*
,
Martin Czerny
2,
Jan Minners
1,
Holger Schröfel
2,
Franz-Josef Neumann
1 and
Philipp Ruile
1 1
Department of Cardiology & Angiology, University Heart Center Freiburg-Bad Krozingen, University Medical Center Freiburg, University of Freiburg, 79189 Bad Krozingen, Germany
2
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart Center Freiburg-Bad Krozingen, University Medical Center Freiburg, University of Freiburg, 79189 Bad Krozingen, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(8), 2259; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm11082259
Submission received: 8 February 2022
/
Revised: 22 March 2022
/
Accepted: 11 April 2022
/
Published: 18 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Future Perspective for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement)
Abstract
:Background: The impact of transcatheter heart valve (THV) position on the occurrence of paravalvular leakage and permanent pacemaker implantation caused by new-onset conduction disturbances is well described. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of the geometry of the thoracic aorta on the implantation depth after TAVI (transcatheter heart valve implantation) using self-expanding valve (SEV) types. Methods: We evaluated three-dimensional geometry of the thoracic aorta based on computed tomography angiography (CTA) in 104 subsequently patients receiving TAVI with SEV devices (Evolut R). Prosthesis position was determined using the fusion imaging method of pre- and post-procedural CTA. An implantation depth of ≥4 mm was defined as the cut-off value for low prosthesis position. Results: The mean implantation depth of the THV in the whole cohort was 4.3 ± 3.0 mm below annulus plane. THV position was low in 66 (63.5%) patients and high in 38 (36.5%) patients. After multivariate adjustment none of the aortic geometry characteristics showed an independent influence on the prosthesis position—neither the Sinus of Valsalva area (p = 0.335) nor the proximal aortic arch diameter (p = 0.754) or the distance from annulus to descending aorta (p = 0.309). Conclusion: The geometry of the thoracic aorta showed no influence on the positioning of self-expanding TAVI valve types.
1. Introduction
As the number of TAVI procedures continues to grow worldwide, increased knowledge about risk factors for possible complications is crucial for any specific valve design. The impact of the position of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) on the occurrence of paravalvular leakage (PVL) and permanent pacemaker implantation caused by new-onset conduction disturbances (CD) is well described [1].
The fusion imaging method of pre- and post-procedural computed tomography angiography (CTA), published by our group, allows a three-dimensional visualization of the THV within the native annulus plane post TAVI [1]. Using this technique, we confirmed an earlier hypothesis, that an implantation depth of ≥4 mm is a predictor for new CD after TAVI using self-expanding valves (SEV) [2,3].
A reduced calcification of the device landing zone is known as predictor of a low prosthesis position in balloon-expandable valves (BEV) [4]. However, neither the degree of calcification nor other structural annular characteristics are reported to influence the implantation depth using SEV [2]. Although, Gorla et al., identified a correlation between aortic angle and the implantation depth of SEV (Evolut R, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) [5].
Therefore, we aimed to examine the influence of the thoracic aorta geometry on the implantation depth after TAVI using SEV devices.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Population
Candidates for inclusion in this study were all patients with implanted newer generation SEV (Evolut R, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) at our institution between January 2015 and June 2020 and an evaluable post-TAVI CTA. As previously described, we perform routine post-TAVI CTA in all eligible patients in our institution [1]. Exclusion criteria were poor image quality, which does not allow fusion imaging, valve-in-valve procedures or the need for peri-interventional conversion to surgical treatment.
A first sub-analysis of these patients was recently published, examining the influence of SEV prosthesis position on the occurrence of TAVI complications [2]. All TAVI procedures were performed by experienced operators (each with an experience of at least 100 TAVI-procedures) via a transfemoral access. The study was approved by the local institutional review board (IRB number EF FR 472/12, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany) and complies with the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients gave written informed consent for TAVI and the anonymized use of clinical, procedural and follow-up data at the time of the intervention.
2.2. Image Acquisition
We used a second generation dual-source CT scanner (Somatom Definition Flash, Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany) for the retrospective ECG-gated contrast-enhanced pre- and post-TAVI CTAs (70 mL for pre- and 50 mL for post-TAVI CTA, Imeron 400, Bracco, Konstanz, Germany). The detailed CTA-protocol was published previously [1]. All patients received the post-TAVI CTAs pre-discharge. Two experienced readers (P.B. and P.R.) conducted the image analysis in consensus using two post-processing workstations (Syngo Multimodality Workplace, Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany and 3mensio Structural Heart, Pie Medical Imaging, Maastricht, The Netherlands).
2.3. Image Analysis
All detailed measurements of the device landing zone and the process of fusion imaging were described previously [1]. The fused pre- and post-procedural CTA images were used for an assessment of the final prosthesis position. The implantation depth, defined as THV length below the annular plane, was measured separately for all three cusps: left coronary cusp (LCC), right coronary cusp (RCC) and non-coronary cusp (NCC). An implantation depth of ≥4 mm was defined as cut-off value for a low prosthesis position.
2.4. Assessment of Aortic Geometry
First, a centerline was created from the annular plane to the comparable height within the descending aorta. According to Rylski et al., we divided the thoracic aorta into three sections by appropriate planes perpendicular to the centerline (Figure 1): (1) Ascending aorta from the annular plane to the proximal origin of the brachiocephalic artery; (2) Aortic arch from the proximal origin of the brachiocephalic artery ranging up to the distal end of the left subclavian artery origin; (3) Proximal descending thoracic aorta from the end of the aortic arch until the plane at the transverse level of the annular plane [6].
Planimetric measurements of the area (including area derived diameter) and the maximum/minimum diameter were conducted at the following planes perpendicular to the centerlines: Sinus of Valsalva, the maximum ascending aorta, the planes immediately proximal to the brachiocephalic artery origin (= proximal aortic arch) as well as distal to the left carotid (= middle aortic arch) and the left subclavian artery origin (= distal aortic arch), and finally descending aorta at the transverse level of the annular plane [6].
The length of ascending aorta (L) was measured following the centerline from annular plane till the proximal aortic arch plane immediately proximal the brachiocephalic artery origin [6]. Additionally, we determined the incremental curve length of the aorta from the annular plane to the middle and distal aortic arch.
Tortuosity of the ascending aorta was calculated as ratio of its length (L) to the linear distance (d) between their two endpoints (annular plane and the proximal origin of the brachiocephalic artery) (Figure 2).
We defined the type of the aortic arch as Type I (origin of the brachiocephalic artery at the height of the maximum cranial curvature of the aortic arch), Type II (origin between the maximum cranial and caudal curvature) and Type III (origin below the caudal curvature) (Figure 3) [7].
The aortic angle was assessed as the angle between annular plane and ideal horizontal plane (Figure 4A) [5]. Additionally, we identified the annular angle between the annular plane and the longitudinal axis of the left ventricle (Figure 4B).
The angle of ascending aortic curvature is defined as the angle between the perpendicular line to the annular plane and the perpendicular line to the cross-sectional plane of the aorta at the level of the brachiocephalic artery [8,9].
For the aortic apex angle we first determined the center points of the ascending (A) and descending aorta (D) at the mid-level of the right pulmonary artery flow [10,11]. The third landmark was placed on the centerline of the most cranial point (C) in the aortic arch—called the apex of the arch. The angle between the lines CA and CD expresses the aortic apex angle (Figure 5).
Additionally, we measured the axial distance between A and D (= ascending descending distance) and between the central points of the annular plane and the descending aorta at the transverse level of the annular plane (= annulus descending distance).
2.5. Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software, Version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and MedCalc, Version 19.4 (MedCalc Software Ltd., Ostend, Belgium). We used the χ2-test (for categorical variables), the Student’s t-test (for normal distributed continuous variables) or the Mann–Whitney-U Test (non-normal distributed continuous variables) to test differences between the groups with high and low THV position. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were performed to assess possible predictors for a low prosthesis position. All variables with a p-value < 0.05 in the group comparison were included in the univariate and—if significant—in the multivariate logistic regression models. When multiple variables were directly related (e.g., Sinus of Valsalva area and Sinus of Valsalva maximum diameter), we chose the variable with the lowest p-value. A two-sided p-value of <0.05 was defined as statistically significant in all tests.
3. Results
In total, 118 consecutive patients received newer generation SEV and post-TAVI CTA within the study period. The image quality of post-TAVI CTAs was too poor in 2 patients; 12 further patients were excluded due to a valve-in-valve procedure or a surgical revision caused by a THV dislocation. Finally, we included 104 patients. Details of the study population were described elsewhere [2]. The mean age of the study cohort (66.3% female) was 82.2 ± 5.2 years with a mean logistic Euroscore of 15.1 ± 11.3%. The mean implantation depth of the THV in the whole cohort was 4.3 ± 3.0 mm below the annulus plane. The baseline, procedural and prosthesis-related characteristics are presented in Table 1.
3.1. Aortic Geometry and Prosthesis Position
Using an implantation depth of ≥4 mm as cut-off value, THV position was low in 66 (63.5%) patients and high in 38 (36.5%) patients. All aortic geometry characteristics are presented in Table 2. Patients with a low THV position showed larger maximum diameters of the Sinus of Valsalva (33.4 ± 3.3 mm vs. 31.7 ± 3.4 mm, p = 0.013), ascending aorta (36.4 ± 3.9 mm vs. 34.5 ± 4.2 mm, p = 0.024) and proximal aortic arch (33.9 ± 3.3 mm vs. 32.6 ± 2.9 mm, p = 0.035). Additionally, we found a longer distance from annulus to descending aorta (83.0[72.8;92.3] mm vs. 76.5[71.0;81.8] mm, p = 0.033) and longer distance from ascending to descending aorta (99.0 ± 12.7 mm vs. 93.7 ± 11.9 mm, p = 0.037) in this group.
Most patients showed an aortic arch type II (78.8%) without any influence on the implantation depth (p = 0.668). Furthermore, the aortic angle (p = 0.733), length of ascending aorta (p = 0.150) or aortic apex arch angle (p = 0.334) were similar between patients with high and low prosthesis position.
3.2. Logistic Regression Analysis
We included the Sinus of Valsalva area, maximum diameter of ascending aorta, mean diameter of proximal aortic arch, as well as the annulus and ascending descending distance in the logistic regression models. After multivariate adjustment none of the aortic geometry characteristics showed an independent influence on the prosthesis position (Table 3).
4. Discussion
In this investigation we examined the influence of aortic geometry on positioning of the self-expanding Evolut R TAVI prostheses using 3D fusion imaging of pre- and post-TAVI CTA. Our results demonstrate that none of aortic geometric features is associated with a low prosthesis position, possibly generating new conduction disturbances. Hence, a detailed assessment of the aortic anatomy seems not to be mandatory before implantation of these prostheses.
While the association between THV implantation depth and the occurrence of TAVI complications is well described [1,2,12,13], information on predictors of low prosthesis positioning using SEV devices is scarce. An accurate assessment of the geometry of the thoracic aorta is crucial in cardiac surgery and some characteristics have been identified as predictors of dissections [6,8,14]. A change in aortic geometry with aging is also described [10].
Up to now, only the impact of aortic angle on THV position was assessed [5]. Contrary to our results, Gorla et al., described a low implantation depth after using Evolut R prosthesis in patients with horizontal aorta (aortic angle > 57°) [5]. However, in this trial the THV position was only assessed in two-dimensional angiographic images and the relationship between implantation depth and aortic angle was evaluated solely on the basis of the cut-off value and not linearly.
To the best of our knowledge, we are the first group to investigate the influence of the complex geometry of the thoracic aorta on THV using SEV. Using fusion imaging with its 3D capacity we were able to demonstrate that THV positioning in SEV is unaffected by specific aortic geometric features. Therefore, we conclude that a separate assessment of aortic geometry is not crucial when planning the procedure in SEV.
5. Limitations
The limited sample size of our cohort limits the power to identify minor anatomic predictors for a low prosthesis position. Nevertheless, the statistical analysis seems sufficient to conclude that the aortic geometry has no major influence on the THV implantation depth. Moreover, our study was limited to patients with one specific SEV type. It remains speculative, if these results are transferable to other SEV types or BEV.
6. Conclusions
The geometry of the thoracic aorta showed no influence on the positioning of self-expanding TAVI valve types.
7. Impact on Daily Practice
Prevention of a low prosthesis position after TAVI is desirable to reduce the occurrence of new conduction disturbances. The results of our current study imply that a separate analysis of the thoracic aortic geometry is not mandatory when planning the TAVI-procedure using SEV.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, P.B., M.C. and H.S.; Data curation, P.B. and P.R.; Formal analysis, P.B. and P.R.; Methodology, H.S.; Supervision, J.M. and F.-J.N.; Writing—original draft, P.B.; Writing—review & editing, M.C., J.M., F.-J.N. and P.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was approved by the local institutional review board (IRB number EF FR 472/12, University of Freiburg, Germany) and complies with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Informed Consent Statement
All patients gave written informed consent for TAVI and the anonymized use of clinical, procedural and follow-up data at the time of the intervention.
Data Availability Statement
Transferring data to third parties is not included in the ethics statement. Please contact the corresponding authors for submitting a request to the ethics committee, if desired.
Conflicts of Interest
Philipp Breitbart receives speaker honoraria from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Novartis. Franz-Josef Neumann reports that his institution has received research grants, consultancy fees, and speaker honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Bayer, The Medicines Company, Bristol, Novartis, Roche, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Medtronic, Edwards und Ferrer. Holger Schröfel is proctor for Edwards, Medtronic and Boston Scientific. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Abbreviations
| BEV | Balloon-expandable valves |
| CD | Conduction disturbances |
| CTA | Computed tomography angiography |
| ECG | Electrocardiogram |
| LVOT | Left ventricular outflow tract |
| PVL | Paravalvular leakage |
| SEV | Self-expanding valves |
| TAVI | Transcatheter aortic valve implantation |
| THV | Transcatheter heart valve |
References
- Ruile, P.; Pache, G.; Minners, J.; Hein, M.; Neumann, F.-J.; Breitbart, P. Fusion imaging of pre- and post-procedural computed tomography angiography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation patients: Evaluation of prosthesis position and its influence on new conduction disturbances. Eur. Heart J.-Cardiovasc. Imaging 2018, 20, 781–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Breitbart, P.; Minners, J.; Hein, M.; Schröfel, H.; Neumann, F.-J.; Ruile, P. Implantation depth and its influence on complications after TAVI with self-expanding valves. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2021, 37, 3081–3092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petronio, A.S.; Sinning, J.M.; Van Mieghem, N.; Zucchelli, G.; Nickenig, G.; Bekeredjian, R.; De Jaegere, P. Optimal Implantation Depth and Adherence to Guidelines on Permanent Pacing to Improve the Results of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with the Medtronic CoreValve System: The CoreValve Prospective, International, Post-Market ADVANCE-II Study. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2015, 8, 837–846. [Google Scholar]
- Breitbart, P.; Pache, G.; Minners, J.; Hein, M.; Schröfel, H.; Neumann, F.-J.; Ruile, P. Predictors for low TAVI-prosthesis position assessed by fusion imaging of pre- and post-procedural CT angiography. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2021, 110, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gorla, R.; De Marco, F.; Garatti, A.; Bianchi, G.; Rubbio, A.P.; Acerbi, E.; Casenghi, M.; Spagnolo, P.; Brambilla, N.; Testa, L.; et al. Impact of aortic angle on transcatheter aortic valve implantation outcome with Evolut-R, Portico, and Acurate-NEO. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021, 97, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rylski, B.; Muñoz, C.; Beyersdorf, F.; Siepe, M.; Reser, D.; Carrel, T.; Schoenhoff, F.; Schlensak, C.; Lescan, M.; Eckstein, H.-H.; et al. How does descending aorta geometry change when it dissects? Eur. J. Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2017, 53, 815–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Madhwal, S.; Rajagopal, V.; Bhatt, D.L.; Bajzer, C.T.; Whitlow, P.; Kapadia, S.R. Predictors of difficult carotid stenting as determined by aortic arch angiography. J. Invasive Cardiol. 2008, 20, 200–204. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Gode, S.; Akinci, O.; Ustunısık, C.T.; Sen, O.; Kadirogulları, E.; Aksu, T.; Ersoy, B.; Gurbak, I.; Duman, Z.M.; Erentug, V. The role of the angle of the ascending aortic curvature on the development of type A aortic dissection: Ascending aortic angulation and dissection. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2019, 29, 615–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.; Kim, H.S.; Moon, E.S.; Yoon, C.-S.; Chung, T.-S.; Song, H.-T.; Suh, J.-S.; Lee, Y.H.; Kim, S. Scoliosis Imaging: What Radiologists Should Know. Radiographics 2010, 30, 1823–1842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’ostrevy, N.; Ardellier, F.D.; Cassagnes, L.; Ouchchane, L.; Azarnoush, K.; Camilleri, L.; Sakka, L. The apex of the aortic arch backshifts with aging. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2017, 39, 703–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rylski, B.; Desjardins, B.; Moser, W.; Bavaria, J.E.; Milewski, R.K. Gender-related changes in aortic geometry throughout life. Eur. J. Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2014, 45, 805–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sherif, M.A.; Abdel-Wahab, M.; Stöcker, B.; Geist, V.; Richardt, D.; Tölg, R.; Richardt, G. Anatomic and Procedural Predictors of Paravalvular Aortic Regurgitation After Implantation of the Medtronic CoreValve Bioprosthesis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2010, 56, 1623–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Almeida, J.G.; Ferreira, S.M.; Fonseca, P.; Dias, T.; Guerreiro, C.; Barbosa, A.R.; Teixeira, P.; Carvalho, M.; Ferreira, W.; Ferreira, N.D.; et al. Association between implantation depth assessed by computed tomography and new-onset conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 2017, 11, 332–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Krüger, T.; Boburg, R.S.; Hamdoun, H.; Oikonomou, A.; Bongers, M.N.; Schlensak, C. Development of a multivariable prediction model for patient-adjusted aortic risk morphology. Eur. J. Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2020, 58, 692–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
Division of the thoracic aorta. Pre-TAVI CTA “stretched vessel” reconstruction for division of the thoracic aorta into three sections: (1) Ascending aorta (annular plane to proximal origin of brachiocephalic artery); (2) Aortic arch (proximal origin of brachiocephalic artery to distal origin of left subclavian artery); (3) Proximal descending thoracic aorta (distal aortic arch end to the plane at transverse level of the annular plane).
Figure 1.
Division of the thoracic aorta. Pre-TAVI CTA “stretched vessel” reconstruction for division of the thoracic aorta into three sections: (1) Ascending aorta (annular plane to proximal origin of brachiocephalic artery); (2) Aortic arch (proximal origin of brachiocephalic artery to distal origin of left subclavian artery); (3) Proximal descending thoracic aorta (distal aortic arch end to the plane at transverse level of the annular plane).
Figure 2.
Pre-TAVI CTA in Volume Rendering Technique (VRT) for determination of Tortuosity. Tortuosity of the ascending aorta was calculated as ratio of its curved length (= L, curved black line) to the linear distance (= d, straight black line) between its two endpoints (annular plane and the proximal origin of the brachiocephalic artery, each marked with the red lines).
Figure 2.
Pre-TAVI CTA in Volume Rendering Technique (VRT) for determination of Tortuosity. Tortuosity of the ascending aorta was calculated as ratio of its curved length (= L, curved black line) to the linear distance (= d, straight black line) between its two endpoints (annular plane and the proximal origin of the brachiocephalic artery, each marked with the red lines).
Figure 3.
Types of the aortic arch. Pre-TAVI CTA in Volume Rendering Technique (VRT) for evaluation of the aortic arch. The types were defined as I (origin of the brachiocephalic artery at the height of the maximum cranial curvature of the aortic arch; (A), Type II (origin between the maximum cranial and caudal curvature; (B) and Type III (origin below the caudal curvature; (C). The maximum cranial (-----) and maximum caudal (-) curvature of the aortic arch as well as the brachiocephalic artery (*) are delineated.
Figure 3.
Types of the aortic arch. Pre-TAVI CTA in Volume Rendering Technique (VRT) for evaluation of the aortic arch. The types were defined as I (origin of the brachiocephalic artery at the height of the maximum cranial curvature of the aortic arch; (A), Type II (origin between the maximum cranial and caudal curvature; (B) and Type III (origin below the caudal curvature; (C). The maximum cranial (-----) and maximum caudal (-) curvature of the aortic arch as well as the brachiocephalic artery (*) are delineated.
Figure 4.
Assessment of aortic and annular angle. Pre-TAVI CTA reconstructions for measurement of the aortic angle between the annular and ideal horizontal plane (A) and the annular angle between the annular plane and the longitudinal axis of the left ventricle (B).
Figure 4.
Assessment of aortic and annular angle. Pre-TAVI CTA reconstructions for measurement of the aortic angle between the annular and ideal horizontal plane (A) and the annular angle between the annular plane and the longitudinal axis of the left ventricle (B).
Figure 5.
Evaluation of the aortic apex angle. For assessment of the aortic apex angle the center points of the ascending (A) and descending aorta (D) at the mid-level of the right pulmonary artery flow were defined as well as the most cranial point (C) on the centerline (= curved black line) in the aortic arch expressing the apex of the arch. The angle between the lines CA and CD expresses the aortic apex angle.
Figure 5.
Evaluation of the aortic apex angle. For assessment of the aortic apex angle the center points of the ascending (A) and descending aorta (D) at the mid-level of the right pulmonary artery flow were defined as well as the most cranial point (C) on the centerline (= curved black line) in the aortic arch expressing the apex of the arch. The angle between the lines CA and CD expresses the aortic apex angle.
Table 1.
Baseline, procedural and prosthesis-related characteristics of the entire study population.
Table 1.
Baseline, procedural and prosthesis-related characteristics of the entire study population.
| All Patients (n = 104) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Age | (years) | 82.2 ± 5.2 |
| Female | 69 (66.3) | |
| BMI | (kg/m2) | 27.8 ± 4.9 |
| Logistic Euroscore | (%) | 15.1 ± 11.3 |
| Preexisting conduction disturbances | Pacemaker | 5 (4.8) |
| Total Conduction disturbances | 48 (46.2) | |
| Atrial fibrillation | 29 (27.9) | |
| Aortic valve area | (cm2) | 0.72 ± 0.22 |
| Aortic valve type | Tricuspid | 98 (94.2) |
| Bicuspid | 6 (5.8) | |
| Annulus diameter | (mm) | 23.1 ± 2.3 |
| Grade of calcification of the device landing zone | total | 4.2 ± 1.1 |
| Left coronary cusp | 1.4 ± 0.5 | |
| Right coronary cusp | 1.3 ± 0.5 | |
| Non-coronary cusp | 1.5 ± 0.5 | |
| Ejection fraction pre-interventional | (%) | 50.6 ± 10.3 |
| Access route | Transfemoral | 103 (99.0) |
| Trans-subclavian | 1 (1.0) | |
| Prosthesis size | 23 mm | 5 (4.8) |
| 26 mm | 46 (44.2) | |
| 29 mm | 42 (40.4) | |
| 34 mm | 11 (10.6) | |
| Mean | 4.3 ± 3.0 | |
| Implantation depth below | Left coronary cusp | 4.9 ± 2.8 |
| annulus (mm) | Right coronary cusp | 4.9 ± 3.4 |
| Non-coronary cusp | 3.1 ± 3.5 |
Values are mean ± standard deviation or n (%). BMI: body mass index.
Table 2.
Aortic geometry characteristics of the entire study population and in patients with a high and low THV position.
Table 2.
Aortic geometry characteristics of the entire study population and in patients with a high and low THV position.
| All Patients (n = 104) | High Position (n = 38) | Low Position (n = 66) | p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aortic angle | (°) | 49.5 [44.3; 54.8] | 48.5 [42.8; 54.3] | 50.0 [45.0; 55.0] | 0.733 |
| Annular angle | (°) | 111.0 [103.0; 123.0] | 109.5 [103.0; 123.3] | 111.5 [103.0; 120.3] | 0.927 |
| Sinus of Valsalva area | (mm2) | 721.0 [612.3; 816.3] | 645.5 [571.8; 776.3] | 756.5 [658.0; 825.5] | 0.005 |
| Sinus of Valsalva maximum diameter | (mm) | 32.8 ± 3.5 | 31.7 ± 3.4 | 33.4 ± 3.3 | 0.013 |
| Sinus of Valsalva minimum diameter | (mm) | 27.9 ± 3.0 | 26.9 ± 3.0 | 28.5 ± 2.9 | 0.010 |
| Ascending aorta area | (mm2) | 953.1 ± 234.6 | 896.4 ± 254.3 | 985.8 ± 217.8 | 0.061 |
| Ascending aorta mean diameter | (mm) | 34.7 ± 4.1 | 33.6 ± 4.2 | 35.3 ± 3.8 | 0.040 |
| Ascending aorta maximum diameter | (mm) | 35.7 ± 4.1 | 34.5 ± 4.2 | 36.4 ± 3.9 | 0.024 |
| Ascending aorta minimum diameter | (mm) | 33.6 ± 4.0 | 32.7 ± 4.3 | 34.1 ± 3.8 | 0.076 |
| Proximal aortic arch area | (mm2) | 804.6 ± 153.7 | 769.3 ± 143.1 | 825.0 ± 157.0 | 0.075 |
| Proximal aortic arch mean diameter | (mm) | 32.0 ± 3.0 | 31.1 ± 2.8 | 32.5 ± 3.0 | 0.024 |
| Proximal aortic arch maximum diameter | (mm) | 33.4 ± 3.2 | 32.6 ± 2.9 | 33.9 ± 3.3 | 0.035 |
| Proximal aortic arch minimum diameter | (mm) | 30.6 ± 2.9 | 30.0 ± 2.7 | 30.9 ± 3.0 | 0.118 |
| Type of the aortic arch | 0.668 | ||||
| I | n | 15 (14.4) | 4 (10.5) | 11 (16.7) | |
| II | n | 82 (78.8) | 31 (81.6) | 51 (77.3) | |
| III | n | 7 (6.7) | 3 (7.9) | 4 (6.1) | |
| Middle aortic arch area | (mm2) | 591.6 ± 113.3 | 569.5 ± 116.9 | 604.3 ± 110.1 | 0.133 |
| Middle aortic arch mean diameter | (mm) | 27.4 ± 2.5 | 26.9 ± 2.5 | 27.7 ± 2.5 | 0.134 |
| Middle aortic arch maximum diameter | (mm) | 28.9 ± 2.7 | 28.4 ± 2.7 | 29.2 ± 2.7 | 0.159 |
| Middle aortic arch minimum diameter | (mm) | 25.7 ± 2.6 | 25.2 ± 2.7 | 26.0 ± 2.5 | 0.114 |
| Distal aortic arch area | (mm2) | 500.8 ± 93.7 | 481.2 ± 82.0 | 512.1 ± 98.7 | 0.105 |
| Distal aortic arch mean diameter | (mm) | 25.2 ± 2.3 | 24.7 ± 2.2 | 25.4 ± 2.4 | 0.123 |
| Distal aortic arch maximum diameter | (mm) | 26.4 ± 2.5 | 26.0 ± 2.4 | 26.6 ± 2.5 | 0.221 |
| Distal aortic arch minimum diameter | (mm) | 24.0 ± 2.2 | 23.5 ± 1.9 | 24.3 ± 2.3 | 0.090 |
| Descending aorta area | (mm2) | 445.4 ± 94.8 | 425.4 ± 68.7 | 456.9 ± 105.8 | 0.103 |
| Descending aorta area mean diameter | (mm) | 23.8 ± 2.7 | 23.3 ± 1.9 | 24.2 ± 3.1 | 0.131 |
| Descending aorta area maximum diameter | (mm) | 24.9 ± 2.6 | 24.3 ± 1.8 | 25.2 ± 2.9 | 0.087 |
| Descending aorta area minimum diameter | (mm) | 22.7 ± 2.4 | 22.4 ± 2.0 | 22.9 ± 2.6 | 0.296 |
| Length of ascending aorta | (mm) | 91.2 ± 10.3 | 89.3 ± 10.2 | 92.3 ± 10.4 | 0.150 |
| Tortuosity | 0.19 [0.13; 0.24] | 0.20 [0.13; 0.26] | 0.18 [0.13; 0.24] | 0.541 | |
| Aortic distance till middle aortic arch | (mm) | 111.1 ± 12.2 | 108.1 ± 11.0 | 112.8 ± 12.6 | 0.060 |
| Aortic distance till distal aortic arch | (mm) | 126.5 [118.0; 138.0] | 123.5 [116.0; 131.0] | 127.0 [119.0; 139.0] | 0.141 |
| Angle of ascending aortic curvature | (°) | 93.0 [85.3; 103.0] | 92.0 [84.5; 105.0] | 93.0 [85.8; 102.0] | 0.885 |
| Aortic apex arch | (°) | 89.2 ± 10.6 | 87.9 ± 10.1 | 89.9 ± 10.9 | 0.334 |
| Distance from annulus to descending aorta | (mm) | 80.0 [72.0; 90.0] | 76.5 [71.0; 81.8] | 83.0 [72.8; 92.3] | 0.033 |
| Distance from ascending to descending aorta | (mm) | 97.1 ± 12.6 | 93.7 ± 11.9 | 99.0 ± 12.7 | 0.037 |
Table 3.
Univariate and multivariate logistic regression model analysis of predictors for a low prosthesis position after TAVI.
Table 3.
Univariate and multivariate logistic regression model analysis of predictors for a low prosthesis position after TAVI.
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds Ratio [95% CI] | p-Value | Odds Ratio [95% CI] | p-Value | |
| Sinus of Valsalva area | 1.004 [1.001–1.007] | 0.015 | 1.002 [0.998–1.006] | 0.335 |
| Ascending aorta maximum diameter | 1.138 [1.014–1.277] | 0.028 | 1.048 [0.870–1.262] | 0.620 |
| Proximal aortic arch mean diameter | 1.187 [1.018–1.384] | 0.028 | 1.041 [0.810–1.338] | 0.754 |
| Distance from annulus to descending aorta | 1.041 [1.002–1.082] | 0.037 | 1.030 [0.973–1.089] | 0.309 |
| Distance from ascending to descending aorta | 1.039 [1.002–1.078] | 0.041 | 0.997 [0.941–1.057] | 0.927 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Breitbart, P.; Czerny, M.; Minners, J.; Schröfel, H.; Neumann, F.-J.; Ruile, P. Impact of the Aortic Geometry on TAVI Prosthesis Positioning Using Self-Expanding Valves. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 2259. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm11082259
AMA Style
Breitbart P, Czerny M, Minners J, Schröfel H, Neumann F-J, Ruile P. Impact of the Aortic Geometry on TAVI Prosthesis Positioning Using Self-Expanding Valves. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(8):2259. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm11082259
Chicago/Turabian StyleBreitbart, Philipp, Martin Czerny, Jan Minners, Holger Schröfel, Franz-Josef Neumann, and Philipp Ruile. 2022. "Impact of the Aortic Geometry on TAVI Prosthesis Positioning Using Self-Expanding Valves" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 8: 2259. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm11082259
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
