IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0151918.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Manual and Automated Preprocedural Segmentation Tools to Predict the Annulus Plane Angulation and C-Arm Positioning for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Author

Listed:
  • Verena Veulemans
  • Tobias Zeus
  • Laura Kleinebrecht
  • Jan Balzer
  • Katharina Hellhammer
  • Amin Polzin
  • Patrick Horn
  • Alexander Blehm
  • Jan-Philipp Minol
  • Patric Kröpil
  • Ralf Westenfeld
  • Tienush Rassaf
  • Artur Lichtenberg
  • Malte Kelm

Abstract

Background: Preprocedural manual multi-slice-CT-segmentation tools (MSCT-ST) define the gold standard for planning transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). They are able to predict the perpendicular line of the aortic annulus (PPL) and to indicate the corresponding C-arm angulation (CAA). Fully automated planning-tools and their clinical relevance have not been systematically evaluated in a real world setting so far. Methods and Results: The study population consists of an all-comers cohort of 160 consecutive TAVR patients with a drop out of 35 patients for technical and anatomical reasons. 125 TAVR patients underwent preprocedural analysis by manual (M-MSCT) and fully automated MSCT-ST (A-MSCT). Method-comparison was performed for 105 patients (Cohort A). In Cohort A, CAA was defined for each patient, and accordance within 10° between M-MSCT and A-MSCT was considered adequate for concept-proof (95% in LAO/RAO; 94% in CRAN/CAUD). Intraprocedural CAA was defined by repetitive angiograms without utilizing the preprocedural measurements. In Cohort B, intraprocedural CAA was established with the use of A-MSCT (20 patients). Using preprocedural A-MSCT to indicate the corresponding CAA, the levels of contrast medium (ml) and radiation exposure (cine runs) were reduced in Cohort B compared to Cohort A significantly (23.3±10.3 vs. 35.3 ±21.1 ml, p = 0.02; 1.6±0.7 vs. 2.4±1.4 cine runs; p = 0.02) and trends towards more safety in valve-positioning could be demonstrated. Conclusions: A-MSCT-analysis provides precise preprocedural information on CAA for optimal visualization of the aortic annulus compared to the M-MSCT gold standard. Intraprocedural application of this information during TAVR significantly reduces the levels of contrast and radiation exposure. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01805739

Suggested Citation

  • Verena Veulemans & Tobias Zeus & Laura Kleinebrecht & Jan Balzer & Katharina Hellhammer & Amin Polzin & Patrick Horn & Alexander Blehm & Jan-Philipp Minol & Patric Kröpil & Ralf Westenfeld & Tienush R, 2016. "Comparison of Manual and Automated Preprocedural Segmentation Tools to Predict the Annulus Plane Angulation and C-Arm Positioning for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0151918
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151918
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151918
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151918&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0151918?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0151918. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.