Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Annunziata Nusca
 -- 6686 2023-05-19 10:48:24 |
2 format corrected.
Beatrix Zheng
 + 2 word(s) 6688 2023-05-22 02:58:58 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Circhetta, S.; Nobile, E.; De Filippis, A.; Vicchio, L.; Nusca, A.; De Stefano, D.; Piccirillo, F.; Cammalleri, V.; Mangiacapra, F.; Ricottini, E.; et al. CT Application in Structural Heart Diseases. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/44553 (accessed on 16 August 2024).
Circhetta S, Nobile E, De Filippis A, Vicchio L, Nusca A, De Stefano D, et al. CT Application in Structural Heart Diseases. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/44553. Accessed August 16, 2024.
Circhetta, Simone, Edoardo Nobile, Aurelio De Filippis, Luisa Vicchio, Annunziata Nusca, Domenico De Stefano, Francesco Piccirillo, Valeria Cammalleri, Fabio Mangiacapra, Elisabetta Ricottini, et al. "CT Application in Structural Heart Diseases" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/44553 (accessed August 16, 2024).
Circhetta, S., Nobile, E., De Filippis, A., Vicchio, L., Nusca, A., De Stefano, D., Piccirillo, F., Cammalleri, V., Mangiacapra, F., Ricottini, E., Melfi, R., Rinaldi, R., Quattrocchi, C.C., Grigioni, F., & Ussia, G.P. (2023, May 19). CT Application in Structural Heart Diseases. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/44553
Circhetta, Simone, et al. "CT Application in Structural Heart Diseases." Encyclopedia. Web. 19 May, 2023.
CT Application in Structural Heart Diseases
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/app13031589

Computed tomography (CT) scanning has recently assumed a first-pillar role in the preoperative planning of patients undergoing transcatheter structural heart procedures (e.g., transcatheter aortic valve implantation, TAVI; MitraClip; Triclip; left atrial appendage occlusion, LAAO). A careful preprocedural assessment is crucial for achieving the best possible result, and, currently, CT represents the paramount technique to obtain morphological data on cardiac and vessel structures, thus allowing to choose the most appropriate vascular approach, the type and size of devices, and all the required steps to meet procedural expectations. The image reconstruction accuracy also provides information to predict potential complications such as misplacements and leakages. 

structural heart interventions cardiac computed tomography TAVI Mitraclip Triclip left appendage occlusion

1. Introduction

In recent years, cardiac computed tomography (CT) has become a useful tool for morphological cardiac imaging and has complemented echocardiography for evaluating structural heart diseases [1]. Due to its high spatial resolution, CT provides relevant morphologic information concerning chamber size, myocardial mass, and vascular and valvular structures [2][3]. In this regard, CT can determine the presence of disease and estimate the significance of dysfunction. Furthermore, it allows the morphological evaluation of other organs, by scanning through different planes, identifying potential related diseases worthy to be considered [4][5][6][7][8][9]. For these reasons, CT has become crucial for the heart team to decide on the intervention’s suitability, both surgical and, even more, percutaneous [10]. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the researchers' group, CT is very useful for a better assessment of valves’ morphology in order to provide a proper preinterventional planning [11][12][13]. In transcatheter heart valvular interventions (THVI), CT is also capable of providing accurate measurements for vascular access and device choice, assisting with landing zone characterization, defining patient-specific risk, and potentially reducing cardiac and peripheral procedural complications [14].

2. Computed Tomography and Aortic Valve

CT Assessment of the Aortic Valve for Transcatheter Procedures

Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is considered crucial for the assessment of aortic valve defects (stenosis and regurgitation) and the preprocedural planning of TAVI [15]. On the technical side, TAVI CT assessment comprises two scans: an EKG-synchronized computed tomographic angiography (CTA) of the heart and aortic root, followed by a high-pitch non-EKG-synchronized CT multislice (CTM) for the evaluation of the access vessels. The two scans are combined into a complete protocol with a single contrast bolus through a peripheral vein. The amount of contrast medium should be calibrated to its concentration, patient’s BMI, and kidney function (three thresholds should be considered: ≥60 mL/min/body surface area (BSA), 30–59 mL/min/BSA and <30 mL/min/BSA). Furthermore, for high-quality studies, according to the Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Society (SCCT), imaging should cover the entire cardiac cycle, and ALARA principles (as low as reasonably achievable) should be followed [16]. This means that the radiation dose that a patient could receive will vary depending on their weight or body mass index (BMI): 100 kV for patients with a BMI of 30 or less (or weight of 90 kg or less) to 120 kV for patients with a BMI of more than 30 kg (or weight more than 90 kg). Three scans are necessary to obtain useful parameters: the first is a basal one without contrast employed to calculate calcium scoring; a second one is used for cardiac evaluation with the administration of iodine contrast agent (after retrospective ECG synchronization); the last one should be extended from clavicles to the thigh’s proximal portion in order to evaluate femoral and axillary accesses [16][17].
CT is almost universally accepted as a standard of care since its use has demonstrated a positive impact on clinical decision-making, favoring better post-TAVI clinical outcomes [18]. Therefore, Corcione et al. proposed a CT-based score called TAVI CT score, including the presence of nodular subvalvular calcium, the elliptical index (defined as the ratio of minimum aortic valve annulus diameter to maximum aortic valve annulus diameter), the aortic isthmus angle, the aorta ventricle angle, the presence of bicuspid valve, the coronary height, the detection of iliofemoral calcification, the access size, and the type of planned access, to predict outcomes. Notably, an increased risk of vascular complications was associated with higher scores [19]. Additionally, in a subanalysis of the WIN-TAVI registry, Spaziano et al. found that moderate or severe left ventricle outflow tract (LVOT) calcification detected by CT scan was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality or stroke [20]. The authors also reported that new pacemaker implantation (PMI) was independently associated with calcium volume of the right coronary cusp. In contrast, a protective effect on the same outcome was observed with the calcium volume of the noncoronary cusp. Lastly, according to this research, severe calcification of the noncoronary/right-coronary commissure can independently predict new atrial fibrillation onset [20]. In a study by Gama et al., it was demonstrated that membranous septum length measured at CT showed strong discriminatory ability for PMI [21]. Furthermore, Gegenava et al. highlighted that MDCT-derived global left ventricular longitudinal strain was a powerful predictor of all-cause mortality. As shown with the Kaplan–Meier curves, MDCT-derived LV GLS > −14% was related to higher cumulative rates of all-cause mortality than MDCT-derived LV GLS ≤−14% [22]. In the following paragraphs, the researchers discuss all specific parameters obtained using CT that are considered of interest in the preprocedural planning for aortic valve replacement.

Peripheral Access

Femoral access is the preferred access for TAVI. MDCT imaging identifies patients with complex vasculature anatomies, which may impact the decision to use an alternative vascular approach (i.e., transapical, transaxillary, or direct aortic) [23]. Vessel size and diameters, degree of calcification, vessel tortuosity, and high-risk features can be properly identified by CT through multiple projections (Figure 1 a,b).
Applsci 13 01589 g002 550
Figure 1. (a) Preoperative measurements of peripheral accesses for TAVI feasibility. (b) Preoperative femoral and iliac courses evaluation.
In a prospective study of 130 patients undergoing TAVI, Hayashida et al. found that vascular complications and 30-day mortality were associated with a sheath-to-femoral artery ratio (SFAR) of 1.05 or higher [24]. Later, Okuyama et al. proposed a change in this cut-off value, believing that this was too strict, providing high sensitivity but poor specificity, and 1.12 may be more appropriate [25].
Interestingly, the most recent valve delivery systems have a size ranging between 14 and 20 Fr, depending on the specific prosthesis valve type and size. While some years ago, a minimal lumen of femoral arteries of 6.0–6.5 mm was required, currently, with reduced delivery profiles, TAVI might also be indicated in patients with peripheral vessels as small as 5.0 mm [26].

Aortic Annulus

The aortic annulus for implanting percutaneous prostheses is not directly visible. It is a virtual ring that passes over a plane via the basal insertions (nadir) of the aortic valve cusps. It has an oval shape that varies during the cardiac cycle, even in patients with severe calcific AS. While the size of the aortic annulus was initially determined almost exclusively via two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), it has been proven that the aortic annulus is a dynamic measure during the cardiac cycle. Thus, 2D imaging could not be precise enough, and only 3D imaging can display a correct measurement. Furthermore, compared with a two-dimensional assessment of the annulus, MDCT-based measures have been proven to be highly reproducible and provide a deeper understanding of annular geometry [27]. Jurenkak et al. found that, during the cardiac cycle, the aortic root varies its shape, suggesting that an MDCT evaluation during the early systole phase is the best choice for TAVI planning [28].
Annular dimension can be quantified with multiple methods: cubic spline interpolation, polygon, attenuation/Hounsfield-unit-based contour detection, and freehand contour. ECG-synchronized, ideally multiphasic, dataset should be used for proper measurement, identifying the reconstruction phase with the largest annular dimensions, thus ensuring accurate device sizing [16]. MDCT sizes the aortic annulus using annular area and perimeter measurements. In the Pivotal Trial of Medtronic Corevalve and the PARTNER 3 trial, it was demonstrated that annulus sizing based on CT measurements reduces the risk of complications such as paravalvular leakages. Moreover, the aortic annulus perimeter or cross-sectional area is superior to the annulus diameter for reducing the likelihood of paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR) [29][30] (Figure 2).
Applsci 13 01589 g003 550
Figure 2. CT measurements of perimeter and area of aortic annulus.
Another goal of current CT sizing algorithms is to calculate a certain degree of oversizing of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) to avoid the post-implantation occurrence of paravalvular leaks (PVLs). It depends on the type of THV and the measurement used (perimeter/area). Self-expandable devices need more oversizing than balloon-expandable prostheses. Conversely, severe oversizing using balloon-expandable devices might increase the annular damage. Additionally, a 10 per cent perimeter oversize does not equal a 10 per cent area oversize, but it is closer to 20 per cent [31].

Aortic Leaflets

Three major parameters regarding aortic leaflets should be carefully considered during the preprocedural planning for TAVI: the number of cusps, the degree of leaflet calcification, and the height of the leaflets to the coronary ostia. MDCT has been proven to be superior to trans thoracic echocardiogram to discriminate aortic valvular morphology and the exact location and quantification of calcifications [32] (Figure 3 a,b).
Applsci 13 01589 g004 550
Figure 3. (a) Calcium degree and morphology evaluation of the aortic valve by CT. (b) LAO–cranial view for calcium location assessment.
The bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is an important risk factor for premature aortic stenosis and challenging anatomy for percutaneous interventions. Thus, patients with bicuspid valves were excluded in the largest trials regarding TAVI due to complex anatomic features (i.e., more calcified, and asymmetrical leaflets, annular eccentricity, and associated aortic dilation). However, in recent years, the interest in this topic has rapidly grown, and the first data appear to be quite satisfactory [33]. BAV has historically been diagnosed with echocardiography that, compared with pathologic analyses obtained from cardiac surgery, can detect this kind of valve morphology in a range between 54 and 93%. Nevertheless, CT was found to be superior to transthoracic echocardiography, especially in patients with extensively calcified aortic valves [34] (Figure 4). In fact, taking into account echocardiographic and tomographic images of fifty patients with AS plus probable bicuspid aortic valve and comparing with surgical findings, Tanaka et al. found that CT data were not significantly different from the intraoperative ones, but the echocardiographic were [34].
Applsci 13 01589 g005 550
Figure 4. CT image of bicuspid valve.
MDCT images should assess several anatomical aspects in the setting of bicuspid aortic valves: the location of raphe by reviewing the commissures symmetry from the basal plane to the sinotubular junction, the specific morphology according to the Sievert classification, the extent of leaflet asymmetry, the degree of calcification, and the length and width of the raphe into the lumen. Indeed, more paravalvular regurgitation due to incomplete valve expansion could be associated with longer calcified raphe and calcium impingement > 4 mm [35].
Quantifying aortic valve calcification by noncontrast CT (CT-AVC) has demonstrated good accuracy in defining the valvular calcification burden (location, extent, and severity), demonstrating satisfactory concordance with echocardiography, and providing incremental prognostic information. CT-AVC has been reported to correlate significantly with peak velocity, mean gradient, and the aortic valvular area measured by echocardiography [36]. AVC is typically assessed by analyzing 1.5–3 mm slice thicknesses CT scans using prospective or retrospective electrocardiogram (ECG) gating and at lower tube current than contrast-enhanced CT studies, thus resulting in a low radiation dose of approximately 1 mSv. AVC can be measured by numerous methods, including Agatston, mass, and volumetric scores. Among these, the first method is more frequently employed.
Electron-beam and multidetector row CT studies demonstrate that the severity of AVC is a robust prognostic predictor in asymptomatic patients with severe AS [37]. Therefore, worse outcomes have been experienced by asymptomatic patients with severe AS and high calcium scores compared with those with low scores [38]. Moreover, preoperatively AVC assessment is crucial for TAVI because it has been demonstrated to negatively affect procedural success and outcomes given the greater presence of paravalvular regurgitation, conduction abnormalities, aortic annulus rupture, coronary ostia occlusion, and stroke. Furthermore, Leber et al. found that, in an analysis of 68 patients undergoing TAVI, calcium score significantly correlated with 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and 1-year mortality and with the incidence and severity of post-procedural aortic regurgitation. Patients with calcium scores > 750 experienced a significantly lower 1-year survival rate than those with <750 [39]. Haensig et al. confirmed these findings in a series of 120 patients receiving an Edwards SAPIEN prosthesis via a transapical approach [40].
Extensive calcification of the aortic cusps also represents a risk factor for obstruction of the left main coronary artery during THV deployment [23]. Additionally, Lee et al. found that subjects with at least mild–moderate post-procedural aortic regurgitation had higher AVC scores than patients with no PAR on follow-up [41]. Unbehaun et al. evaluated the amount of calcifications of the aortic landing zone, including the left ventricle outflow tract (LVOT), aortic annulus, and valvular cusps in 307 patients undergoing transapical TAVI, using a semiquantitative (4-point scale) and quantitative (Agatston calcium score) CT method. They found that an increased risk of PAR was strongly related to each 100-unit increment of the Agatston calcium score. Furthermore, a higher risk of AR was reported in patients with asymmetric cusp calcification and severe calcification of the landing zone [42]. Interestingly, Feuchtner et al. recently showed that paravalvular AR increased with the protruding rather than the “adherent” calcifications of the aortic valve and root [43].

Coronary Ostia

MDCT is crucial to identify the distance from the annulus/leaflet hinge point to the left main and right coronary ostia and the length of the corresponding coronary cusp (Figure 5 a,b). Multiplanar, three-dimensional techniques allow better visualization and assessment of these complex structures and their relationships. For this reason, CT represents the preprocedural imaging gold standard for the evaluation of the risk of coronary occlusion. Even if there is no threshold value contraindicating the procedure, an increased risk of coronary occlusion was reported in patients with a coronary ostial height from the annulus < 12 mm and a sinus of Valsalva mean diameter < 30 mm. To ensure reproducibility, the height of the coronary ostia perpendicular to the plane of the annulus should be measured with an electronic caliper from the plane of the ring to the bottom of the ostium. No recommendations exist as to whether these measurements should be performed in systole or diastole [16].
Applsci 13 01589 g006 550
Figure 5. (a) Right and (b) left coronary ostia height assessment by CT images.
Ribeiro et al. found that coronary occlusion most commonly affects the left coronary (88.6 per cent) and occurs more commonly in women and following balloon expandable TAVI. In a systematic review, several parameters were found to be possible predictors of procedural complications: a low-lying coronary ostium < 10 to 12 mm from the basal leaflet insertion to the coronary ostium as measured by MDCT, mean sinus of Valsalva diameter of <30 mm, and sinus of Valsalva diameter/annular diameter ratio of <1.25. Furthermore, according to this analysis, women appear to be more subjected to coronary occlusion because of smaller aortic root dimensions and lower coronary ostial height [44]. Probably, significantly oversized THV or aortic root dissection, the displacement of native bulky aortic leaflets, impingement of the coronary ostia by the THV support structure, the embolization of calcium, thrombus, etc., are the mechanisms underlying coronary obstruction.

Sinotubular Junction (STJ) and Proximal Aorta

An inaccurate measure of the sinotubular junction and its degree of calcification may be associated with the incidence of prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) [45]. Small and severely calcified sinotubular junctions may also predispose to several complications: THV embolization, aortic root rupture during implantation of the THV, and balloon migration. In addition, using longer balloon-expandable valves, the sinotubular junction could be damaged with a transcatheter device.
The accuracy of MDCT imaging of the sinotubular junction depends on the measurement method. Compared with axial methods, double-oblique imaging yields similar findings to planimetry, and measurements obtained by double-oblique imaging are generally smaller, as was demonstrated in a study of patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms [46]. The height of the sinotubular junction should be measured perpendicular to the ring’s plane using an electronic caliper from the annulus to its lowest point [16] (Figure 6 a,b).
Applsci 13 01589 g007 550
Figure 6. (a) Sinotubular junction and (b) proximal ascending aorta evaluated by CT for TAVI.

Left Ventricular Outflow Tract (LVOT) and Septum

Both self-expandable and balloon-expandable THVs extend their lower extremity into the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). A careful assessment of this region should be performed to minimize complications (Figure 7 a,b).
Applsci 13 01589 g008 550
Figure 7. (a) LVOT calcium degree evaluation. (b) Preoperative LVOT measurements.
The proper seating of the THV and the risk of spontaneous repositioning after deployment can be affected by marked upper septal hypertrophy protruding in LVOT. Furthermore, prominent septal hypertrophy is associated with atrioventricular blocks and the need for post-TAVI PMI [47]. Accordingly, Jilaihawi et al. showed that MDCT-based measurements of septal thickness predict the post-TAVI occurrence of AV blocks [48]. Septal hypertrophy causing significant LVOT obstruction is a contraindication to TAVI; however, as demonstrated by Moreno et al., proper modifications to THVs can allow successful implantation in this kind of patients [49]. Notably, Stolzmann et al. found that echocardiography tends to overestimate interventricular septum thickness compared with MDCT (up to 2.2 mm) [50].
Furthermore, the risk of significative residual aortic regurgitation and second valve implantation can be affected by moderate or severe LVOT calcification. In this regard, Okuno et al. proposed a specific classification based on the severity of LVOT calcification: mild was detected in the presence of one nodule extending <5 mm in any dimension and covering <10% of the perimeter of the LVOT; moderate was documented in the presence of two nodules or one extending >5 mm in any direction or covering >10% of the perimeter of the LVOT; and severe was considered in the case of multiple nodules of single focus extending >10 mm in length or covering >20% of the perimeter of the LVOT. Additionally, patients with moderate or severe LVOT calcification and treated with earlier-generation THVs suffered from an increased risk of annular rupture. The difference was not statistically significant among patients treated with newer generation prosthetic valves. Concordantly, it was observed that patients with moderate or severe LVOT calcification have an increased risk of death for all-cause mortality at one year [51].

3. Computed Tomography and Mitral Valve

CT Assessment of the Mitral Apparatus for Transcatheter Procedures

Imaging modalities are necessary to provide information on mitral valve anatomy complexity and obtain a detailed plan for transcatheter procedures. Although echocardiography has represented the gold standard for pre- and post-treatment grading, diagnosis, and monitoring, MDCT has become widespread for interventional planning in patients who are candidates for TMVI. It allows rapid image acquisition time and wide availability, excellent spatial resolution, allowing high-quality 2D and 3D reconstructions of the entire mitral apparatus at any moment of the cardiac cycle, high reproducibility and relative operator independence, visualization, quantification of calcifications, and a complete view of the heart in its entirety and the chest wall [52]. CT provides relevant information on mitral leaflet pathology. Compared with echocardiography, CT provided the highest accuracy in identifying prolapse (sensitivity of 96%; specificity of 93%) [53].
Furthermore, cardiac CT is an excellent technique for diagnosing annular disjunction, a remodeling process associated with mitral valve prolapse, since observation of the entire cardiac cycle allows people to evaluate not only the degree of disjunction but also the dynamics of the ring [54]. In the context of secondary or functional MR, CT also provides essential information regarding the geometry of the valve and the remodeling process (including flap tenting heights and coaptation depth). Knowing that these data are essential for docking the device, CT provides details on the anatomy of the left ventricle, which is also crucial in assessing feasibility. A ventricular diameter greater than 70 mm is often considered an exclusion criterion for transcatheter procedures [55].
Exact measurements of the mitral annulus are critical for choosing the correct device size and, consequently, for an effective TMVI procedure [56]. Equally important is the understanding of the modifications of the annulus during the various phases of the cardiac cycle (modifications that vary according to the type of etiology of the insufficiency); based on this, the landing zone and the type of device are decided [57]. It appears evident that the annulus is larger in patients with mitral regurgitation than in controls, with a greater remodeling in an anterior–posterior, rather than lateral, direction [56]. Furthermore, in functional MR, the annulus reduces movement compared to primary MR [58]. According to Palmisano et al., some annular geometry changes in patients with severe mitral regurgitation were detected using CT. They demonstrated that the mitral valve annulus was larger in patients with severe MR, especially in patients with prolapse (Carpentier type II). It is curious how, in these patients, the largest dimensions were found in the systolic phase, unlike controls in which the largest area is found in the early diastolic phase [59].

Annulus Sizing 

Measurement of the mitral annulus is of primary importance since inaccurate sizing has devastating consequences. Moreover, given the complex mitral annulus 3D shape, collecting annular sizing could be challenging [60]. A direct calculation method involves tracing the edges of the annulus on conventional two-, three-, four-chamber, and short-axis views along the posterior mitral leaflet insertion and fibrous continuity. However, this method is time-consuming and can lead to an oversized device, increasing the risk of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOT). Blanke et al. developed a more straightforward method that assumes assimilating the mitral annulus to a planar D shape; given these premises, the two fibrous trigones are connected along a virtually straight line, effectively excluding the anterior horn [61]. Since the dimensions of the mitral annulus change during the cardiac cycle, the calculations are performed in the cardiac cycle phase in which the annulus is larger. Area and perimeter are the most used measures. However, other parameters are developed, such as the trigone–trigone distance; the intercommissural distance, which corresponds to the maximum diameter of the annulus parallel to the trigone–trigone distance; the septum-lateral distance, which corresponds to the maximum diameter of the annulus perpendicular to the IC. It must be emphasized that each device refers to different parameters for sizing [59].

Predicting LVOT Obstruction

The LVOT lies between the mitro-aortic continuity and the interventricular septum. The placement of a transcatheter mitral valve prosthesis could extend and narrow the LVOT (neo-LVOT) due to anterior deflection of the AML [62]. Indeed, LVOT obstruction is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity following TMV replacement procedures (TMVR) [63]. CT can predict the size of anticipated neo-LVOT, thus predicting potential obstruction. A recent study demonstrated that a CT neo-LVOT area measuring 1.7 cm2 or smaller predicts LVOT obstruction with a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 92% [64]. Notably, the neo-LVOT size is also dynamic; for this reason, it is usually measured throughout systole.
Notably, LVOT changes the cardiac cycle; therefore, this measurement is made in systole. Several device- and patient-specific factors could influence the size of the neo-LVOT. The former include stent protrusion, flare, and skirt size [65]. A more ventricular position of the mitral prosthesis, defined as a ventriculo-atrial offset of 80:20 (i.e., 80% of the device is positioned on the ventricular side and the remaining 20% on the atrial side), increases the risk of neo-LVOT obstruction. On the other hand, patient-specific characteristics include aortomitral angle, basal septal thickness, and anterior mitral leaflet length. The aortomitral angle is defined as the internal angle between the central axis of the mitral and aortic annulus; in particular, the risk of obstruction increases when the measurement of this angle approaches or exceeds 90°. Another factor influencing the risk of obstruction is the thickness of the interventricular septum, particularly a value greater than 14 mm [66]. Finally, longer anterior leaflet lengths (>30 mm) are associated with the possibility of neo-LVOT obstruction [67]. All these parameters should be carefully evaluated before proceeding with percutaneous mitral valve replacement to reduce complications and improve procedure success.

Landing Zone

CT provides information about the potential landing zone, defined as the site where the mitral prosthetic device should be deployed. It varies according to the device used and the specific mitral defect (functional MRI or mitral prolapse). As mentioned, a landing zone of 80/20 should be achieved. This means that, after deployment, about 80% of the device should be located on the ventricular side, whereas the remaining 20% on the atrial side. However, many factors may affect landing zone definition, such as the presence of mitral annulus (MAC) calcification, annular disjunction, and atrioventricular platform (abnormal atrial displacement of the mitral valve leaflet hinge point). In those devices that are anchored by friction and radial force, the MAC in the landing zone is essential [60]. Hence, CT accurately estimates gravity, density, and magnitude. Furthermore, an atrioventricular shelf of the LV myocardium can often be found near the junction point of the posterior mitral leaflet in patients with basal myocardial remodeling [68]. The presence of this shelf is more relevant for those mitral devices that use the inferolateral basal myocardium for anchoring. Finally, in these patients, the measurements must be performed in the physiological position [60].

Mitral Anulus Calcification

MAC is crucial when considering TMVI; it has been demonstrated to be an independent predictor of an elevated mean diastolic gradient after the MitraClip procedure [69]. It also contraindicates the use of some valve replacement devices. CT is the gold standard for its diagnosis and characterization, demonstrating a higher diagnostic performance than MRI and echocardiography. Degenerative annular mitral calcification (MAC) is a common finding in the elderly, with an incidence of about 6% [67]. It is the consequence of a progressive calcification of the fibrous part of the mitral annulus. Although typically confined to the posterior border of the annulus, its extension may circumferentially involve the annulus. Another cause of MAC is caseous calcification of the mitral annulus (CCMA). CCMA has a different territory of distribution (typically the area close to the posterior mitral leaflet) and a different composition (with calcium disposition only in the periphery and a central zone of variable attenuation without contrast enhancement). Therefore, CT can accurately describe these formations and the exact distinction between MAC and CCMA [70].

Vascular Structures

Preprocedural planning for TMVI includes careful evaluation of surrounding vascular structures using CT. Therefore, a fundamental part of the evaluation concerns the course and patency of the circumflex artery (Cx) due to its proximity to the posterior mitral annulus. When this distance is too short, some transcatheter procedures are contraindicated due to the risk of vessel closure during the fixation of the device. The distance between these two structures should be measured on multiple views to avoid the risk of dissection, closure, or perforation of the coronary sinus (CS) during or after the procedure [71][72]. In particular, the relationship between the distance and angle between these two structures and the procedural success of patients undergoing transcatheter annuloplasty with the Carillon device has been demonstrated [73]. Consistently, a distance of CS to Cx of <8.6 mm in the distal device landing zone has been shown to be predictive of complications on the circumflex artery [74].

Other Potential Use of CT in Transcatheter Mitral Valve Interventions

Choosing the optimal approach for TVMI is also essential in procedural planning, and CT plays a crucial role in this context. Thus, in patients undergoing a transapical procedure, CT can be used to understand which intercostal space is close to the apex of the left ventricle and could allow the device to be deployed perpendicular to the mitral annulus, thus avoiding obstruction, perivalvular leaks, and canting [60]. Although most mitral procedures require intraprocedural transesophageal echocardiography guidance, CT can determine the optimal site for the septal puncture in those with the transseptal approach. Although there are no specific guidelines, it is preferred to puncture the inferoposterior section to obtain good coaxiality to the mitral annulus [75]. Moreover, it is very useful to calculate the distance from the puncture site to the mitral valve.
CT is also helpful in determining the optimal fluoroscopic viewing angle of the mitral annulus for device deployment, which should be perpendicular to the mitral annulus (coplanar angle) [60]. Knowledge of this angle is fundamental for interventionists for accurate coaxial device positioning. Indeed, any change from this fluoroscopic angle can translate into inaccurate deployment, potentially increasing procedural complications.
In patients undergoing mitral valve-in-valve (VIV), CT can identify patients at higher risk of complications, providing information on the pre-existing prosthesis and thus predicting the risk of LVOT obstruction [70].
Finally, CT has a role in the follow-up of patients undergoing TMVI, especially in assessing the presence of any subclinical thrombosis. Although the clinical significance of the latter is not yet known, CT can diagnose this complication by highlighting it as a thickening of the hypodense flap with the decreased movement of the prosthetic flaps [76]. CT also has a role in predicting the risk of mitral stenosis after the MitraClip procedure. In a study by Kaewkes et al., annulus diameters (both anteroposterior and medial–lateral), annulus area, and mitral valve orifice area were inversely associated with transvalvular gradients [77].

Computed Tomography and Tricuspid Valve

CT Assessment of the Tricuspid Apparatus for Transcatheter Procedures

The multiphasic, contrast-enhanced, retrospective cardiac-gated CT acquisition enables multiplanar reconstruction of the entire heart silhouette, including the proximal main vessels, allowing a comprehensive understanding of the right heart anatomy (Figure 8) [78].
Applsci 13 01589 g011 550
Figure 8. CT assessment of the tricuspid annulus using a semiautomated software-based approach (3mensio Structural Heart; Pie Medical Imaging, Maastricht, The Netherlands): (A) Transverse plane (short-axis) at level of tricuspid annulus that is delineated by the red line. The centroid of the tricuspid valve (Ce) and the three main commissures (SA: septal anterior, SP: septal posterior, AP: anteroposterior) are identified according to specific anatomical landmarks. (B) Coronal plane (long axis) at level of the anteroposterior diameter of the tricuspid annulus. (C) Fluoroscopic and angiographic simulation showing the three-dimensional position of the tricuspid annulus and commissures within the right heart chambers. (D) Three-dimensional recontraction by the volume rendering of the right chambers showing the geometrical spatial relationship of the tricuspid annulus and surrounding structures. RA: right atrium; RV: right ventricle; MV: mitral valve; AV: aortic valve.
The amounts of contrast and radiation required have been considerably reduced with the new CT scanners, as well as the duration of the acquisition phase. It is also possible to perform more precise reconstructions even in elevated heart rates, such as atrial fibrillation, a widespread pathology in patients with significant TR [79]. Notably, a dedicated protocol for tricuspid valve CT acquisition is necessary; it requires opacification of the right heart cavities by a monophasic or biphasic injection with a mixture of saline and contrast in different percentages and following bolus tracking in the right ventricle or the pulmonary artery [80].
The comprehensive assessment of the right heart and the adjacent anatomical structures, which the tricuspid defect could significantly remodel, provides an appropriate evaluation for TR severity, patients’ clinical risk stratification, anatomical suitability for tricuspid interventions, and preprocedural planning in patients undergoing TV therapies [78]. Specifically, several fundamental parameters might be obtained by CT imaging in order to design the optimal procedure and achieve the highest success rate during transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions (TTVI), such as dimensions and morphology of the TV annulus, location of commissures, tethering parameters, anatomical regurgitant orifice area, right atrium (RA) and RV dimensions, surrounding structures, device landing zone, and vascular access routes [11]. Using multiplanar reconstruction, tricuspid cross-sectional area, perimeter, septolateral (SL), and anteroposterior (AP) diameters can be obtained by a short-axis view on the annular level. The SL diameter refers to the maximal distance in septal to the lateral direction (that corresponds to the anulus measurement in the four-chamber view at the transthoracic echocardiography), whereas the AP diameter is orthogonal to the previous one. Due to the complex saddle-shaped structure of the tricuspid annulus, a 2D approach does not precisely address the valvular anatomy. Therefore, 3D semiautomated software can help in this setting [81]. Moreover, dimensions are usually obtained both at end-systole and mid-diastole because of the dynamic variability in annular size. Interestingly, in a study by Praz et al., there was a good correspondence between TEE and CT for tricuspid annulus sizing and valve area in patients with severe TR [82]. Finally, distances between commissures (anteroseptal, posteroseptal, and anteroposterior) and distances between the centrum of the TV and commissures can also be measured [12].
The leaflet tethering is another important parameter to consider in TTVI planning. In a study by Van Rosendael et al. [83], in patients with TR ≥ 3+, CT exhibited greater tricuspid annulus and RV dimensions and marked tethering of the anterior and septal tricuspid leaflets compared to those with mild valvular defects. Of note, the grade of functional TR was independently correlated with the anteroposterior annulus diameter. The features of leaflet tethering, including tenting height, angle, and area, can be obtained with CT scan and compared to the ones visualized with echocardiography. The edge-to-edge repair using the Triclip (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) or PASCAL systems (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) allows bringing the TV leaflets closer, thus reducing the grade of regurgitation. The role of CT in the edge-to-edge repair is less important than the other techniques, even if viable information about the coaptation gap, annulus, and right chamber remodeling can be obtained [84].
Moreover, as described for the mitral valve, measuring the anatomical regurgitant orifice area (AROA) by CT is also feasible. It may be an additional grading tool for TR severity in patients with contradictory echocardiographic parameters [85]. Notably, this flow-independent parameter of TR severity provided by CT has been reported to strongly correlate with the 3D measurement of vena contracta (thus with three-dimensional assessment of the narrowest flow region of the tricuspid regurgitant volume), using transesophageal echocardiography [81]. The dimensions of the RV and RA are also crucial for evaluating the anatomic feasibility of transcatheter therapies. RA must allocate the delivery catheter and be large enough for various maneuvers during the procedure [11]. Furthermore, with the promising results of the trials regarding transcatheter TV replacement, assessing the right chambers is more important than ever. Some valves are used in high-risk patients, such as NaviGate bio prosthesis (NaviGate Cardiac Structures, Lake Forest) or EVOQUE valve (Edwards Lifesciences). In this setting, RV volume, the distance between the RV apex and the tricuspid annular plane, the location of the papillary muscles, the moderator band, and the presence of prominent trabeculae must be assessed with regard to the protrusion of the prosthesis into the RV, most notably to avoid RV outflow tract obstruction [84].
Tricuspid valve replacement is also challenging due to the lack of calcifications at the level of the tricuspid annulus [86]. The Melody prosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis) is usually used in transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring procedures. In this setting, 3D CT measurement of the effective inner diameters of the ring is fundamental to bypass the differences reported in the nominal size documented by surgical report [87]. Annuloplasty devices, such as Cardioband™ (Valtech Cardio, OrYehuda, Israel), use a transfemoral ring or suture-based approach to reduce the diameter in cases where annular dilation is the major pathophysiological mechanism. Therefore, in this type of transcatheter repair procedures, it is also essential to evaluate the structures surrounding the tricuspid annulus, particularly the course of the right coronary artery, that could be damaged. The vessel course in relation to the annulus is variable. An RCA course at the annular level was shown in 65% of patients, a superior (i.e., atrial) course in 10%, and a crossing course in 25% [88]. Finally, measurement of the inferior vena cava plays a role in some interventional procedures aiming to reduce TR. In the heterotopic implantation of valves in the caval veins, balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve prostheses such as Sapien XT (Edwards Lifesciences) are placed to reduce blood backflow and prevention of venous congestion. Other systems, such as the TricValve system (P&F, Vienna) or the Tricento (NVT AG, Muri), are deployed top-down from the superior to the inferior vena cava, improving pressure’s profile in the right atrium. In these procedures, it is of crucial importance to calculate the distance between the junction plane of the inferior vena cava, the right atrium, and the first hepatic vein to avoid hepatic vein obstruction [12].

Computed Tomography and Left Atrial Appendage

CT Assessment in LAA Transcatheter Closure

Multimodality imaging is essential for LAAC. MDCT allows a great resolution of LAA due to its minimal motion [89]. For patients in sinus rhythm, prospective electrocardiographic (ECG) gating is necessary by identifying either atrial systole/ventricular diastole or atrial diastole/ventricular systole. For patients in AF, retrospective ECG gating may be required, and the optimal reconstruction phase depends on the ventricular rate [90].
Computed tomography is particularly important in three phases regarding patients undergoing LAAC: the preprocedural exclusion of LA thrombosis, the preprocedural planning, taking into account LAA morphology and dimensions, and the surveillance after the procedure [89]. CT can easily exclude thrombi in the LAA, even if transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) remains the gold standard. A major strength of computed tomography is the high capability to exclude LAA thrombosis (96–100%) [91]. Delayed imaging allows the differentiation between the slow-flow sluggish and the thrombi; thus, the filling defect that persists after one minute of contrast injection is more suggestive of a real thrombus [92].
In the preprocedural planning of LAAC, the MDCT helps acquire information about LAA shape, size, and surrounding structures. Few studies compared computed tomography, transesophageal echocardiography, and angiography for LAA assessment. Most of them are retrospective, single-center studies, reporting larger dimensions with CT than 2D/3D-TEE and angiography. Rajwani et al. found that in 73 Watchman implantations, 2D-TEE and MDCT maximum diameter agreed on device size only in 25.4% of cases, mainly due to significative eccentricity of the orifice [93]. Notably, the LAAC device size choice depends on these measurements [89]. Computed tomography allows for determining LAA ostia and landing zones (the LAA zone where the LAAO device will ideally seat) and providing the minimum LAA diameter, maximum diameter, perimeter, and area. These measurements should be assessed at maximal LAA diastole or mid to late left ventricular systole, corresponding to maximum LAA end-diastolic filling. In this phase, the LAA is largest, thus reducing the risk of device undersizing and subsequent peri-device leaks. In a study by Wang et al., the CT-detected diameter of the LAA ostium calculated from the perimeter resulted in the best parameter for sizing the LAA occluder device [94]. It is essential to point out that different devices require different modalities of LAA ostium measurement [89]. For the Watchman, the landing zone is measured from the circumflex artery inferiorly to a superior point that is established at 1–2 cm within the left upper superior pulmonary vein ridge. For the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP) or the Amulet (second-generation ACP), the landing zone is usually placed 10 mm and 12–15 mm inward of the LAA orifice, respectively [89]. Once the LAA orifice diameters have been established, the LAA’s depth must also be determined in the CT sagittal and coronal views. It is measured from the central point of the orifice to the apex of the main lobe, and the chosen device should have the same diameter as the LAA depth [89]. From a technical view, the assessment of the LAA shape is a valuable aid in predicting the level of difficulty of device implantation. The “chicken wing” shape is usually considered to be the most complicated, particularly in case of a proximal and sharp bend. “Cactus” and “cauliflower” shapes may be challenging compared with the “wind-sock” shape (Figure 9) [89].
Applsci 13 01589 g012 550
Figure 9. CT imaging for the assessment of left atrial appendage’s conformation. Example of “chicken wing” shape.
Finally, MDCT has an important role in post-procedural follow-up, which can be performed 1–6 months after the device implantation. The primary role of computed tomography in this context is the exclusion of device-associated thrombus, post-implant device orientation, pericardial effusion, and peri-device leaks. Jaguszewski et al. found that CT detected leaks in 62% of cases in patients implanted with ACP, whereas TEE revealed only 36% [95]. A perpendicular position of the lobe in relation to the LAA neck has been reported to be a good predictor of the absence of residual leakage after the procedure; moreover, device compression of more than 10% is associated with complete sealing [96].

6. Conclusions

CT is a crucial imaging tool for structural cardiac disease interventions. Due to its high temporal and spatial resolution, cardiac CT has become fundamental for the preprocedural planning of THVI, allowing precise device sizing and vascular access assessment, helping with landing zone characterization, and reducing procedural complications. Ongoing indications for preprocedural computed tomography in cardiac interventional procedures include transcatheter aortic valve implantation, percutaneous interventions of the mitral, tricuspid, pulmonary valves, and left atrial appendage occlusion. The role of multimodality imaging will undoubtedly continue to grow because of the development of new software technologies that will allow integration of CT with other techniques [97][98][99], such as fluoroscopy in the catheterization laboratory. These advances will improve accuracy and safety in planning and guiding these interventions while reducing the dose of contrast volume, radiation exposure, and procedural duration.

References

  1. Schoenhagen, P.; Numburi, U.; Halliburton, S.S.; Aulbach, P.; Von Roden, M.; Desai, M.Y.; Rodriguez, L.L.; Kapadia, S.R.; Tuzcu, E.M.; Lytle, B.W. Three-dimensional imaging in the context of minimally invasive and transcatheter cardiovascular interventions using multi-detector computed tomography: From pre-operative planning to intra-operative guidance. Eur. Hear. J. 2010, 31, 2727–2740.
  2. Boxt, L.M.; Lipton, M.J.; Kwong, R.Y.; Rybicki, F.; E Clouse, M. Computed tomography for assessment of cardiac chambers, valves, myocardium and pericardium. Cardiol. Clin. 2003, 21, 561–585.
  3. Ecabert, O.; Peters, J.; Schramm, H.; Lorenz, C.; von Berg, J.; Walker, M.J.; Vembar, M.; Olszewski, M.E.; Subramanyan, K.; Lavi, G.; et al. Automatic Model-Based Segmentation of the Heart in CT Images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 2008, 27, 1189–1201.
  4. Hu, S.; Hoffman, E.; Reinhardt, J. Automatic lung segmentation for accurate quantitation of volumetric X-ray CT images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 2001, 20, 490–498.
  5. Bae, K.T.; Giger, M.L.; Chen, C.; Kahn, C.E. Automatic segmentation of liver structure in CT images. Med. Phys. 1993, 20, 71–78.
  6. Mir, A.; Hanmandlu, M.; Tandon, S. Texture analysis of CT images. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 1995, 14, 781–786.
  7. Yang, X.; He, X.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, S.; Xie, P. COVID-CT-Dataset: A CT Scan Dataset about COVID-19. Mach. Learn. 2020.
  8. Sarma, A.; Heilbrun, M.E.; Conner, K.E.; Stevens, S.M.; Woller, S.C.; Elliott, C.G. Radiation and Chest CT Scan Examinations. Chest 2012, 142, 750–760.
  9. O’Connor, J.F.; Cohen, J.O. Computerized tomography (CAT scan, CT scan) in orthopaedic surgery. JBJS 1978, 60, 1096–1098.
  10. Patel, K.P.; Vandermolen, S.; Herrey, A.S.; Cheasty, E.; Menezes, L.; Moon, J.C.; Pugliese, F.; Treibel, T.A. Cardiac Computed Tomography: Application in Valvular Heart Disease. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 9, 849540.
  11. Cammalleri, V.; Carpenito, M.; Bono, M.C.; Mega, S.; Ussia, G.P.; Grigioni, F. Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Therapy: From Anatomy to Intervention. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 8, 778445.
  12. Cammalleri, V.; Carpenito, M.; De Stefano, D.; Ussia, G.P.; Bono, M.C.; Mega, S.; Nusca, A.; Cocco, N.; Nobile, E.; De Filippis, A.; et al. Novel Computed Tomography Variables for Assessing Tricuspid Valve Morphology: Results from the TRIMA (Tricuspid Regurgitation IMAging) Study. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 2825.
  13. Cammalleri, V.; Mega, S.; Ussia, G.P.; Grigioni, F. Mitral and Tricuspid Valves Percutaneous Repair in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure. Hear. Fail. Clin. 2021, 17, 607–618.
  14. Hell, M.M.; Achenbach, S. CT support of cardiac structural interventions. Br. J. Radiol. 2019, 92, 20180707.
  15. Holmes, D.R.; Mack, M.J.; Kaul, S.; Agnihotri, A.; Alexander, K.P.; Bailey, S.R.; Calhoon, J.H.; Carabello, B.A.; Desai, M.Y.; Edwards, F.H.; et al. 2012 ACCF/AATS/SCAI/STS Expert Consensus Document on Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2012, 59, 1200–1254.
  16. Blanke, P.; Weir-McCall, J.R.; Achenbach, S.; Delgado, V.; Hausleiter, J.; Jilaihawi, H.; Marwan, M.; Norgaard, B.L.; Piazza, N.; Schoenhagen, P.; et al. Computed tomography imaging in the context of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) / transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR): An expert consensus document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 2019, 13, 1–20.
  17. Chiocchi, M.; Ricci, F.; Pasqualetto, M.; D’errico, F.; Benelli, L.; Pugliese, L.; Cavallo, A.U.; Forcina, M.; Presicce, M.; De Stasio, V.; et al. Role of computed tomography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation and valve-in-valve implantation: Complete review of preprocedural and postprocedural imaging. J. Cardiovasc. Med. 2020, 21, 182–191.
  18. Binder, R.K.; Webb, J.G.; Willson, A.B.; Urena, M.; Hansson, N.C.; Norgaard, B.L.; Pibarot, P.; Barbanti, M.; Larose, E.; Freeman, M.; et al. The Impact of Integration of a Multidetector Computed Tomography Annulus Area Sizing Algorithm on Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013, 62, 431–438.
  19. Corcione, N.; Morello, A.; Ferraro, P.; Cimmino, M.; Albanese, M.; Pepe, M.; Nestola, P.L.; Giordano, S.; Bardi, L.; Biondi-Zoccai, G.; et al. TAVI-CT score to evaluate the anatomic risk in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 1–9.
  20. Spaziano, M.; Chieffo, A.; Watanabe, Y.; Chandrasekhar, J.; Sartori, S.; Lefèvre, T.; Petronio, A.S.; Presbitero, P.; Tchetche, D.; Iadanza, A.; et al. Computed tomography predictors of mortality, stroke and conduction disturbances in women undergoing TAVR: A sub-analysis of the WIN-TAVI registry. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 2018, 12, 338–343.
  21. Gama, F.; Teles, R.; Oliveira, A.; Brizido, C.; Goncalves, P.; Brito, J.; Ferreira, A.; Abecasis, J.; Almeida, M.; Mendes, M. Predicting pacemaker implantation after TAVR with procedural CT. Eur. Hear. J. 2020, 41, ehaa946.0192.
  22. Gegenava, T.; van der Bijl, P.; Hirasawa, K.; Vollema, E.M.; van Rosendael, A.; van der Kley, F.; de Weger, A.; Hautemann, D.J.; Reiber, J.H.; Marsan, N.A.; et al. Feature tracking computed tomography-derived left ventricular global longitudinal strain in patients with aortic stenosis: A comparative analysis with echocardiographic measurements. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 2019, 14, 240–245.
  23. Masson, J.-B.; Kovac, J.; Schuler, G.; Ye, J.; Cheung, A.; Kapadia, S.; Tuzcu, M.E.; Kodali, S.; Leon, M.B.; Webb, J.G. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Review of the Nature, Management, and Avoidance of Procedural Complications. JACC: Cardiovasc. Interv. 2009, 2, 811–820.
  24. Hayashida, K.; Lefèvre, T.; Chevalier, B.; Hovasse, T.; Romano, M.; Garot, P.; Mylotte, D.; Uribe, J.; Farge, A.; Donzeau-Gouge, P.; et al. Transfemoral Aortic Valve Implantation: New Criteria to Predict Vascular Complications. JACC: Cardiovasc. Interv. 2011, 4, 851–858.
  25. Okuyama, K.; Jilaihawi, H.; Kashif, M.; Takahashi, N.; Chakravarty, T.; Pokhrel, H.; Patel, J.; Forrester, J.S.; Nakamura, M.; Cheng, W.; et al. Transfemoral Access Assessment for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Evidence-based application of computed tomography over invasive angiography. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2015, 8, e001995.
  26. Reardon, M.J.; Van Mieghem, N.M.; Popma, J.J.; Kleiman, N.S.; Søndergaard, L.; Mumtaz, M.; Adams, D.H.; Deeb, G.M.; Maini, B.; Gada, H.; et al. Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 376, 1321–1331.
  27. Lehmkuhl, L.; Foldyna, B.; Haensig, M.; Von Aspern, K.; Lücke, C.; Andres, C.; Grothoff, M.; Riese, F.; Nitzsche, S.; Holzhey, D.; et al. Role of preprocedural computed tomography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Fortschr. Geb. Rontgenstr. Nuklearmed. 2013, 185, 941–949.
  28. Jurencak, T.; Turek, J.; Kietselaer, B.L.J.H.; Mihl, C.; Kok, M.; Van Ommen, V.G.V.A.; Van Garsse, L.A.F.M.; Nijssen, E.C.; Wildberger, J.E.; Das, M. MDCT evaluation of aortic root and aortic valve prior to TAVI. What is the optimal imaging time point in the cardiac cycle? Eur. Radiol. 2015, 25, 1975–1983.
  29. Adams, D.H.; Popma, J.J.; Reardon, M.J.; Yakubov, S.J.; Coselli, J.S.; Deeb, G.M.; Gleason, T.G.; Buchbinder, M.; Hermiller, J., Jr.; Kleiman, N.S.; et al. Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 370, 1790–1798.
  30. Mack, M.J.; Leon, M.B.; Thourani, V.H.; Makkar, R.; Kodali, S.K.; Russo, M.; Kapadia, S.R.; Malaisrie, S.C.; Cohen, D.J.; Pibarot, P.; et al. Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 1695–1705.
  31. Mylotte, D.; Dorfmeister, M.; Elhmidi, Y.; Mazzitelli, D.; Bleiziffer, S.; Wagner, A.; Noterdaeme, T.; Lange, R.; Piazza, N. Erroneous Measurement of the Aortic Annular Diameter Using 2-Dimensional Echocardiography Resulting in Inappropriate CoreValve Size Selection: A retrospective comparison with multislice computed tomography. JACC: Cardiovasc. Interv. 2014, 7, 652–661.
  32. Helmy, S.M.; Karim, S.A. Multimodality imaging in aortic stenosis. Hear. Views 2022, 23, 22.
  33. Vincent, F.; Ternacle, J.; Denimal, T.; Shen, M.; Redfors, B.; Delhaye, C.; Simonato, M.; Debry, N.; Verdier, B.; Shahim, B.; et al. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis. Circulation 2021, 143, 1043–1061.
  34. Tanaka, R.; Yoshioka, K.; Niinuma, H.; Ohsawa, S.; Okabayashi, H.; Ehara, S. Diagnostic Value of Cardiac CT in the Evaluation of Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis: Comparison With Echocardiography and Operative Findings. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2010, 195, 895–899.
  35. Popma, J.J.; Ramadan, R. CT Imaging of Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease for TAVR ∗. JACC: Cardiovasc. Imaging 2016, 9, 1159–1163.
  36. Doris, M.K.; Jenkins, W.; Robson, P.; Pawade, T.; Andrews, J.P.; Bing, R.; Cartlidge, T.; Shah, A.; Pickering, A.; Williams, M.C.; et al. Computed tomography aortic valve calcium scoring for the assessment of aortic stenosis progression. Heart 2020, 106, 1906–1913.
  37. Feuchtner, G.M.; Müller, S.; Grander, W.; Alber, H.F.; Bartel, T.; Friedrich, G.J.; Reinthaler, M.; Pachinger, O.; Nedden, D.Z.; Dichtl, W. Aortic valve calcification as quantified with multislice computed tomography predicts short-term clinical outcome in patients with asymptomatic aortic stenosis. J. Hear. Valve Dis. 2006, 15, 494–498.
  38. Rosenhek, R.; Binder, T.; Porenta, G.; Lang, I.; Christ, G.; Schemper, M.; Maurer, G.; Baumgartner, H. Predictors of Outcome in Severe, Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis. New Engl. J. Med. 2000, 343, 611–617.
  39. Leber, A.W.; Kasel, M.; Ischinger, T.; Ebersberger, U.H.; Antoni, D.; Schmidt, M.; Riess, G.; Renz, V.; Huber, A.; Helmberger, T.; et al. Aortic valve calcium score as a predictor for outcome after TAVI using the CoreValve revalving system. Int. J. Cardiol. 2011, 166, 652–657.
  40. Haensig, M.; Lehmkuhl, L.; Rastan, A.J.; Kempfert, J.; Mukherjee, C.; Gutberlet, M.; Holzhey, D.; Mohr, F.W. Aortic valve calcium scoring is a predictor of significant paravalvular aortic insufficiency in transapical-aortic valve implantation. Eur. J. Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2012, 41, 1234–1241.
  41. Lee, J.A.; Singh, T.; Ben Dor, I.; Torguson, R.; Okubagzi, P.; Satler, L.; Goldstein, S.; Taylor, A.; Weigold, W.G.; Pichard, A.; et al. AAortic valve calcium score by computed tomography in predicting perivalvular aortic insufficiency post transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2012, 59, E1962.
  42. Unbehaun, A.; Pasic, M.; Dreysse, S.; Drews, T.; Kukucka, M.; Mladenow, A.; Ivanitskaja-Kühn, E.; Hetzer, R.; Buz, S. Transapical Aortic Valve Implantation: Incidence and predictors of paravalvular leakage and transvalvular regurgitation in a series of 358 patients. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2012, 59, 211–221.
  43. Feuchtner, G.; Plank, F.; Bartel, T.; Mueller, S.; Leipsic, J.; Schachner, T.; Müller, L.; Friedrich, G.; Klauser, A.; Grimm, M.; et al. Prediction of Paravalvular Regurgitation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation by Computed Tomography: Value of Aortic Valve and Annular Calcification. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2013, 96, 1574–1580.
  44. Ribeiro, H.B.; Nombela-Franco, L.; Urena, M.; Mok, M.; Pasian, S.; Doyle, D.; DeLarochellière, R.; Côté, M.; Laflamme, L.; DeLarochellière, H.; et al. Coronary Obstruction Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A systematic review. JACC: Cardiovasc. Interv. 2013, 6, 452–461.
  45. Jilaihawi, H.; Chin, D.; Spyt, T.; Jeilan, M.; Vasa-Nicotera, M.; Bence, J.; Logtens, E.; Kovac, J. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Medtronic-Corevalve bioprosthesis. Eur. Heart J. 2009, 31, 857–864.
  46. Delgado, V.; Ng, A.C.T.; Shanks, M.; Van Der Kley, F.; Schuijf, J.D.; Van De Veire, N.R.L.; Kroft, L.; De Roos, A.; Schalij, M.J.; Bax, J.J. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Role of multimodality cardiac imaging. Expert Rev. Cardiovasc. Ther. 2010, 8, 113–123.
  47. Piazza, N.; Nuis, R.-J.; Tzikas, A.; Otten, A.; Onuma, Y.; García-García, H.; Schultz, C.; van Domburg, R.; van Es, G.-A.; van Geuns, R.; et al. Persistent conduction abnormalities and requirements for pacemaking six months after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eurointervention 2010, 6, 475–484.
  48. Jilaihawi, H.; Chin, D.; Vasa-Nicotera, M.; Jeilan, M.; Spyt, T.; Ng, G.A.; Bence, J.; Logtens, E.; Kovac, J. Predictors for permanent pacemaker requirement after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the CoreValve bioprosthesis. Am. Hear. J. 2009, 157, 860–866.
  49. Moreno, R.; Calvo, L.; García, E.; Dobarro, D. Severe septal hypertrophy: Is it necessarily a contraindication for the transcatheter implantation of an Edwards-Sapien prosthesis? Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 2010, 63, 241–242.
  50. Stolzmann, P.; Scheffel, H.; Trindade, P.T.; Plass, A.R.; Husmann, L.; Leschka, S.; Genoni, M.; Marincek, B.; Kaufmann, P.A.; Alkadhi, H. Left Ventricular and Left Atrial Dimensions and Volumes: Comparison between dual-source CT and echo-cardiography. Investig. Radiol. 2008, 43, 284–289.
  51. Okuno, T.; Asami, M.; Heg, D.; Lanz, J.; Praz, F.; Hagemeyer, D.; Brugger, N.; Gräni, C.; Huber, A.; Spirito, A.; et al. Impact of Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Calcification on Procedural Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC: Cardiovasc. Interv. 2020, 13, 1789–1799.
  52. Faggioni, L.; Gabelloni, M.; Accogli, S.; Angelillis, M.; Costa, G.; Spontoni, P.; Petronio, A.S.; Caramella, D. Preprocedural planning of transcatheter mitral valve interventions by multidetector CT: What the radiologist needs to know. Eur. J. Radiol. Open 2018, 5, 131–140.
  53. Feuchtner, G.M.; Alkadhi, H.; Karlo, C.; Sarwar, A.; Meier, A.; Dichtl, W.; Leschka, S.; Blankstein, R.; Gruenenfelder, J.; Stolzmann, P.; et al. Cardiac CT Angiography for the Diagnosis of Mitral Valve Prolapse: Comparison with Echocardiography. Radiology 2010, 254, 374–383.
  54. Lee, A.P.-W.; Jin, C.-N.; Fan, Y.; Wong, R.H.; Underwood, M.J.; Wan, S. Functional Implication of Mitral Annular Disjunction in Mitral Valve Prolapse. JACC: Cardiovasc. Imaging 2017, 10, 1424–1433.
  55. Ewe, S.H.; Klautz, R.J.; Schalij, M.J.; Delgado, V. Role of computed tomography imaging for transcatheter valvular repair/insertion. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2011, 27, 1179–1193.
  56. Naoum, C.; Leipsic, J.; Cheung, A.; Ye, J.; Bilbey, N.; Mak, G.; Berger, A.; Dvir, D.; Arepalli, C.; Grewal, J.; et al. Mitral Annular Dimensions and Geometry in Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation and Mitral Valve Prolapse. JACC: Cardiovasc. Imaging 2016, 9, 269–280.
  57. Nishimura, R.A.; Bonow, R.O. Percutaneous Repair of Secondary Mitral Regurgitation—A Tale of Two Trials. New Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 2374–2376.
  58. E van Wijngaarden, S.; Kamperidis, V.; Regeer, M.V.; Palmen, M.; Schalij, M.J.; Klautz, R.J.; Bax, J.J.; Marsan, N.A.; Delgado, V. Three-dimensional assessment of mitral valve annulus dynamics and impact on quantification of mitral regurgitation. Eur. Hear. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2017, 19, 176–184.
  59. Palmisano, A.; Nicoletti, V.; Colantoni, C.; Monti, C.B.; Pannone, L.; Vignale, D.; Darvizeh, F.; Agricola, E.; Schaffino, S.; De Cobelli, F.; et al. Dynamic changes of mitral valve annulus geometry at preprocedural CT: Relationship with functional classes of regurgitation. Eur. Radiol. Exp. 2021, 5, 1–12.
  60. Ranganath, P.; Moore, A.; Guerrero, M.; Collins, J.; Foley, T.; Williamson, E.; Rajiah, P. CT for Pre- and Postprocedural Evaluation of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement. Radiographics 2020, 40, 1528–1553.
  61. Blanke, P.; Dvir, D.; Cheung, A.; Ye, J.; Levine, R.A.; Precious, B.; Berger, A.; Stub, D.; Hague, C.; Murphy, D.; et al. A simplified D-shaped model of the mitral annulus to facilitate CT-based sizing before transcatheter mitral valve implantation. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 2014, 8, 459–467.
  62. Blanke, P.; Naoum, C.; Webb, J.; Dvir, D.; Hahn, R.T.; Grayburn, P.; Moss, R.R.; Reisman, M.; Piazza, N.; Leipsic, J. Multimodality Imaging in the Context of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement. JACC: Cardiovasc. Imaging 2015, 8, 1191–1208.
  63. Wang, D.D.; Eng, M.H.; Greenbaum, A.; Myers, E.; Forbes, M.; Karabon, P.; Pantelic, M.; Song, T.; Nadig, J.; Guerrero, M.; et al. Validating a prediction modeling tool for left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction after transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR). Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2017, 92, 379–387.
  64. Yoon, S.-H.; Bleiziffer, S.; Latib, A.; Eschenbach, L.; Ancona, M.; Vincent, F.; Kim, W.-K.; Unbehaum, A.; Asami, M.; Dhoble, A.; et al. Predictors of Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Obstruction After Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement. JACC: Cardiovasc. Interv. 2019, 12, 182–193.
  65. Guerrero, M.; Salinger, M.; Pursnani, A.; Pearson, P.; Lampert, M.; Levisay, J.; Russell, H.; Feldman, T. Transseptal transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve: A step by step guide from preprocedural planning to postprocedural care. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2017, 92, E185–E196.
  66. Gersh, B.J.; Maron, B.J.; Bonow, R.O.; Dearani, J.A.; Fifer, M.A.; Link, M.S.; Naidu, S.S.; Nishimura, R.A.; Ommen, S.R.; Rakowski, H.; et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. Circulation 2011, 124, e783–e831.
  67. Babaliaros, V.C.; Greenbaum, A.B.; Khan, J.M.; Rogers, T.; Wang, D.D.; Eng, M.H.; O’Neill, W.W.; Paone, G.; Thourani, V.H.; Lerakis, S.; et al. Intentional Percutaneous Laceration of the Anterior Mitral Leaflet to Prevent Outflow Obstruction During Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement. JACC: Cardiovasc. Interv. 2017, 10, 798–809.
  68. Faletra, F.F.; Leo, L.A.; Paiocchi, V.L.; Caretta, A.; Viani, G.M.; Schlossbauer, S.A.; Demertzis, S.; Ho, S.Y. Anatomy of mitral annulus insights from non-invasive imaging techniques. Eur. Hear. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2019, 20, 843–857.
  69. Thaden, J.J.; Malouf, J.F.; Nkomo, V.T.; Pislaru, S.V.; Holmes, D.R.; Reeder, G.S.; Rihal, C.S.; Eleid, M.F. Mitral Valve Anatomic Predictors of Hemodynamic Success With Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair. J. Am. Hear. Assoc. 2018, 7, e007315.
  70. Grover, R.; Ohana, M.; Arepalli, C.D.; Sellers, S.L.; Mooney, J.; Kueh, S.-H.; Kim, U.; Blanke, P.; Leipsic, J.A. Role of MDCT Imaging in Planning Mitral Valve Intervention. Curr. Cardiol. Rep. 2018, 20, 16.
  71. Natarajan, N.; Patel, P.; Bartel, T.; Kapadia, S.; Navia, J.; Stewart, W.; Tuzcu, E.M.; Schoenhagen, P. Peri-procedural imaging for transcatheter mitral valve replacement. Cardiovasc. Diagn. Ther. 2016, 6, 144–159.
  72. Storz, C.; Mangold, S.; Mueller, K.A.; Lausberg, H.; Gatidis, S.; Heber, S.D.; Schlett, C.L.; Nikolaou, K.; Bamberg, F. Cardiac CT for Guiding Mitral Valve Interventions. Curr. Cardiovasc. Imaging Rep. 2017, 10, 1–10.
  73. Rottländer, D.; Ballof, J.; Gödde, M.; Degen, H.; Ögütcü, A.; Alektorov, K.; Chatrou, M.; Heintzen, M.P.; Haude, M. CT-Angiography to predict outcome after indirect mitral annuloplasty in patients with functional mitral regurgitation. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2020, 97, 495–502.
  74. Rottländer, D.; Gödde, M.; Degen, H.; Ögütcü, A.; Saal, M.; Haude, M. Procedural planning of CS -based indirect mitral annuloplasty using CT-angiography. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021, 98, 1393–1401.
  75. Urena, M.; Himbert, D.; Brochet, E.; Carrasco, J.L.; Iung, B.; Nataf, P.; Vahanian, A. Transseptal Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Using Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valves. JACC: Cardiovasc. Interv. 2017, 10, 1905–1919.
  76. Hosoba, S.; Mori, M.; Goto, Y.; Fukumoto, Y.; Shimura, T.; Yamamoto, M. Hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening in surgically-implanted mitral bioprosthesis. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2020, 15, 74–77.
  77. Kaewkes, D.; Patel, V.; Ochiai, T.; Flint, N.; Ahmad, Y.; Kim, I.; Koseki, K.; Sharma, R.; Joseph, J.; Yoon, S.-H.; et al. Usefulness of Computed Tomography to Predict Mitral Stenosis After Transcatheter Mitral Valve Edge-to-Edge Repair. Am. J. Cardiol. 2021, 153, 109–118.
  78. Hashimoto, G.; Fukui, M.; Sorajja, P.; Cavalcante, J.L. Essential roles for CT and MRI in timing of therapy in tricuspid regurgitation. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2019, 62, 459–462.
  79. Lewis, M.A.; Pascoal, A.; Keevil, S.F.; Lewis, C.A. Selecting a CT scanner for cardiac imaging: The heart of the matter. Br. J. Radiol. 2016, 89, 20160376.
  80. Pulerwitz, T.C.; Khalique, O.K.; Leb, J.; Hahn, R.T.; Nazif, T.; Leon, M.B.; George, I.; Vahl, T.P.; D’Souza, B.; Bapat, V.N.; et al. Optimizing Cardiac CT Protocols for Comprehensive Acquisition Prior to Percutaneous MV and TV Repair/Replacement. JACC: Cardiovasc. Imaging 2020, 13, 836–850.
  81. Lopes, B.B.; Sorajja, P.; Hashimoto, G.; Fukui, M.; Bapat, V.N.; Du, Y.; Bae, R.; Schwartz, R.S.; Stanberry, L.I.; Enriquez-Sarano, M.; et al. Tricuspid Anatomic Regurgitant Orifice Area by Functional DSCT. JACC: Cardiovasc. Imaging 2021, 14, 1669–1672.
  82. Praz, F.; Khalique, O.K.; Macedo, L.G.D.R.; Pulerwitz, T.C.; Jantz, J.; Wu, I.Y.; Kantor, A.; Patel, A.; Vahl, T.; Bapat, V.; et al. Comparison between Three-Dimensional Echocardiography and Computed Tomography for Comprehensive Tricuspid Annulus and Valve Assessment in Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation: Implications for Tricuspid Regurgitation Grading and Transcatheter Therapies. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2018, 31, 1190–1202.e3.
  83. van Rosendael, P.J.; Joyce, E.; Katsanos, S.; Debonnaire, P.; Kamperidis, V.; van der Kley, F.; Schalij, M.J.; Bax, J.J.; Marsan, N.A.; Delgado, V. Tricuspid valve remodelling in functional tricuspid regurgitation: Multidetector row computed tomography insights. Eur. Hear. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2015, 17, 96–105.
  84. Hell, M.M.; Emrich, T.; Kreidel, F.; Kreitner, K.-F.; Schoepf, U.J.; Münzel, T.; von Bardeleben, R.S. Computed tomography imaging needs for novel transcatheter tricuspid valve repair and replacement therapies. Eur. Hear. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2020, 22, 601–610.
  85. Hahn, R.T.; Thomas, J.D.; Khalique, O.K.; Cavalcante, J.L.; Praz, F.; Zoghbi, W.A. Imaging Assessment of Tricuspid Regurgitation Severity. JACC: Cardiovasc. Imaging 2019, 12, 469–490.
  86. Fukuda, S.; Saracino, G.; Matsumura, Y.; Daimon, M.; Tran, H.; Greenberg, N.L.; Hozumi, T.; Yoshikawa, J.; Thomas, J.D.; Shiota, T. Three-Dimensional Geometry of the Tricuspid Annulus in Healthy Subjects and in Patients With Functional Tricuspid Regurgitation. Circulation 2006, 114, I492–I498.
  87. McElhinney, D.B.; Cabalka, A.K.; Aboulhosn, J.A.; Eicken, A.; Boudjemline, Y.; Schubert, S.; Himbert, D.; Asnes, J.D.; Salizzoni, S.; Bocks, M.L.; et al. Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve-in-Valve Implantation for the Treatment of Dysfunctional Surgical Bioprosthetic Valves: An International, Multicenter Registry Study. Circulation 2016, 133, 1582–1593.
  88. van Rosendael, P.J.; Kamperidis, V.; Kong, W.K.; van Rosendael, A.R.; van der Kley, F.; Marsan, N.A.; Delgado, V.; Bax, J.J. Computed tomography for planning transcatheter tricuspid valve therapy. Eur. Hear. J. 2016, 38, 665–674.
  89. Prakash, R.; Saw, J. Imaging for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016, 92, 437–450.
  90. Oda, S.; Honda, K.; Yoshimura, A.; Katahira, K.; Noda, K.; Oshima, S.; Yuki, H.; Kidoh, M.; Utsunomiya, D.; Nakaura, T.; et al. 256-Slice coronary computed tomographic angiography in patients with atrial fibrillation: Optimal reconstruction phase and image quality. Eur. Radiol. 2015, 26, 55–63.
  91. Martinez, M.W.; Kirsch, J.; Williamson, E.E.; Syed, I.S.; Feng, D.; Ommen, S.; Packer, D.L.; Brady, P.A. Utility of Nongated Multidetector Computed Tomography for Detection of Left Atrial Thrombus in Patients Undergoing Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation. JACC: Cardiovasc. Imaging 2009, 2, 69–76.
  92. Hur, J.; Kim, Y.J.; Lee, H.-J.; Nam, J.E.; Hong, Y.; Kim, H.Y.; Lee, J.W.; Choi, B.W. Cardioembolic Stroke: Dual-Energy Cardiac CT for Differentiation of Left Atrial Appendage Thrombus and Circulatory Stasis. Radiology 2012, 263, 688–695.
  93. Rajwani, A.; Nelson, A.J.; Shirazi, M.G.; Disney, P.J.S.; Teo, K.S.L.; Wong, D.T.L.; Young, G.D.; Worthley, S.G. CT sizing for left atrial appendage closure is associated with favourable outcomes for procedural safety. Eur. Hear. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2016, 18, 1361–1368.
  94. Wang, Y.; Di Biase, L.; Horton, R.P.; Nguyen, T.; Morhanty, P.; Natale, A. Left Atrial Appendage Studied by Computed Tomography to Help Planning for Appendage Closure Device Placement. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2010, 21, 973–982.
  95. Jaguszewski, M.; Manes, C.; Puippe, G.; Salzberg, S.; Müller, M.; Falk, V.; Lüscher, T.; Luft, A.; Alkadhi, H.; Landmesser, U. Cardiac CT and echocardiographic evaluation of peri-device flow after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure using the AMPLATZER cardiac plug device. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2014, 85, 306–312.
  96. Clemente, A.; Avogliero, F.; Berti, S.; Paradossi, U.; Jamagidze, G.; Rezzaghi, M.; Della Latta, D.; Chiappino, D. Multimodality imaging in preoperative assessment of left atrial appendage transcatheter occlusion with the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug. Eur. Hear. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2015, 16, 1276–1287.
  97. Diwakar, M.; Tripathi, A.; Joshi, K.; Sharma, A.; Singh, P.; Memoria, M.; Kumar, N. A comparative review: Medical image fusion using SWT and DWT. Mater. Today: Proc. 2020, 37, 3411–3416.
  98. Diwakar, M.; Tripathi, A.; Joshi, K.; Memoria, M.; Singh, P.; Kumar, N. Latest trends on heart disease prediction using machine learning and image fusion. Mater. Today: Proc. 2020, 37, 3213–3218.
  99. Joshi, K.; Kumar, M.; Tripathi, A.; Kumar, A.; Sehgal, J.; Barthwal, A. Latest Trends in Multi-Modality Medical Image Fusion: A Generic Review; Springer: Singapore, 2022; Volume 434, pp. 663–671.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Simone Circhetta
,
Edoardo Nobile
,
Aurelio De Filippis
,
Luisa Vicchio
,
Annunziata Nusca
,
Domenico De Stefano
,
Francesco Piccirillo
,
Valeria Cammalleri
,
Fabio Mangiacapra
,
Elisabetta Ricottini
,
Rosetta Melfi
,
Raffaele Rinaldi
,
Carlo Cosimo Quattrocchi
,
Francesco Grigioni
,
Gian Paolo Ussia
View Times: 182
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 22 May 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback