Evolving computed tomography angiography for aortic valve replacement: Optimizing transcatheter and surgical therapies

Photon-Counting Versus Dual-Source CT for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Planning

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular CT is required for planning transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

PURPOSE

To compare image quality, suitability for TAVI planning, and radiation dose of photon-counting CT (PCCT) with that of dual-source CT (DSCT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective study on consecutive TAVI candidates with aortic valve stenosis who underwent contrast-enhanced aorto-ilio-femoral PCCT and/or DSCT between 01/2022 and 07/2023. Signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated by standardized ROI analysis. Image quality and suitability for TAVI planning were assessed by four independent expert readers (two cardiac radiologists, two cardiologists) on a 5-point-scale. CT dose index (CTDI) and dose-length-product (DLP) were used to calculate effective radiation dose (eRD).

RESULTS

300 patients (136 female, median age: 81 years, IQR: 76-84) underwent 302 CT examinations, with PCCT in 202, DSCT in 100; two patients underwent both. Although SNR and CNR were significantly lower in PCCT vs. DSCT images (33.0 ± 10.5 vs. 47.3 ± 16.4 and 47.3 ± 14.8 vs. 59.3 ± 21.9, P < .001, respectively), visual image quality was higher in PCCT vs. DSCT (4.8 vs. 3.3, P < .001), with moderate overall interreader agreement among radiologists and among cardiologists (κ = 0.60, respectively). Image quality was rated as "excellent" in 160/202 (79.2%) of PCCT vs. 5/100 (5%) of DSCT cases. Readers found images suitable to depict the aortic valve hinge points and to map the femoral access path in 99% of PCCT vs. 85% of DSCT (P < 0.01), with suitability ranked significantly higher in PCCT vs. DSCT (4.8 vs. 3.3, P < .001). Mean CTDI and DLP, and thus eRD, were significantly lower for PCCT vs. DSCT (22.4 vs. 62.9; 519.4 vs. 895.5, and 8.8 ± 4.5 mSv vs. 15.3 ± 5.8 mSv; all P < .001).

CONCLUSION

PCCT improves image quality, effectively avoids non-diagnostic CT imaging for TAVI planning, and is associated with a lower radiation dose compared to state-of-the-art DSCT. Radiologists and cardiologists found PCCT images more suitable for TAVI planning.

CT imaging post-TAVI: Murphy's first law in action-preparing to recognize the unexpected

Transfemoral aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been long considered the standard of therapy for high-risk patients with severe aortic-stenosis and is now effectively employed in place of surgical aortic valve replacement also in intermediate-risk patients. The potential lasting consequences of minor complications, which might have limited impact on elderly patients, could be more noteworthy in the longer term when occurring in younger individuals. That's why a greater focus on early diagnosis, correct management, and prevention of post-procedural complications is key to achieve satisfactory results. ECG-triggered multidetector computed tomography angiography (CTA) is the mainstay imaging modality for pre-procedural planning of TAVI and is also used for post-interventional early detection of both acute and long-term complications. CTA allows detailed morphological analysis of the valve and its movement throughout the entire cardiac cycle. Moreover, stent position, coronary artery branches, and integrity of the aortic root can be precisely evaluated. Imaging reliability implies the correct technical setting of the computed tomography scan, knowledge of valve type, normal post-interventional findings, and awareness of classic and life-threatening complications after a TAVI procedure. This educational review discusses the main post-procedural complications of TAVI with a specific imaging focus, trying to clearly describe the technical aspects of CTA Imaging in post-TAVI and its clinical applications and challenges, with a final focus on future perspectives and emerging technologies. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This review undertakes an analysis of the role computed tomography angiography (CTA) plays in the assessment of post-TAVI complications. Highlighting the educational issues related to the topic, empowers radiologists to refine their clinical approach, contributing to enhanced patient care. KEY POINTS: Prompt recognition of TAVI complications, ranging from value issues to death, is crucial. Adherence to recommended scanning protocols, and the optimization of tailored protocols, is essential. CTA is central in the diagnosis of TAVI complications and functions as a gatekeeper to treatment.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Small Aortic Annulus: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment in patients with severe aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus (SAA) remains to be determined. This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with a SAA.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter international randomized trial was performed in 15 university hospitals. Participants were 151 patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (mean diameter <23 mm) randomized (1:1) to TAVR (n=77) versus SAVR (n=74). The primary outcome was impaired valve hemodynamics (ie, severe prosthesis patient mismatch or moderate-severe aortic regurgitation) at 60 days as evaluated by Doppler echocardiography and analyzed in a central echocardiography core laboratory. Clinical events were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 75.5±5.1 years, with 140 (93%) women, a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 2.50% (interquartile range, 1.67%-3.28%), and a median annulus diameter of 21.1 mm (interquartile range, 20.4-22.0 mm). There were no differences between groups in the rate of severe prosthesis patient mismatch (TAVR, 4 [5.6%]; SAVR, 7 [10.3%]; P=0.30) and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (none in both groups). No differences were found between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 1 [1.3%]; SAVR, 1 [1.4%]; P=1.00) and stroke (TAVR, 0; SAVR, 2 [2.7%]; P=0.24) at 30 days. After a median follow-up of 2 (interquartile range, 1-4) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 7 [9.1%]; SAVR, 6 [8.1%]; P=0.89), stroke (TAVR, 3 [3.9%]; SAVR, 3 [4.1%]; P=0.95), and cardiac hospitalization (TAVR, 15 [19.5%]; SAVR, 15 [20.3%]; P=0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (women in the majority), there was no evidence of superiority of contemporary TAVR versus SAVR in valve hemodynamic results. After a median follow-up of 2 years, there were no differences in clinical outcomes between groups. These findings suggest that the 2 therapies represent a valid alternative for treating patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA, and treatment selection should likely be individualized according to baseline characteristics, additional anatomical risk factors, and patient preference. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the limited sample size leading to an underpowered study, and need to be confirmed in future larger studies.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03383445.