Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.2
Scopus CiteScore – 3.4 (CiteScore Tracker 3.4)
Index Copernicus  – 161.11; MEiN – 140 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2020, vol. 29, nr 8, August, p. 983–992

doi: 10.17219/acem/123624

Publication type: original article

Language: English

License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Radiation dose and repeatability of aortic valve measurement by multidetector row computed tomography to assess eligibility for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Bartłomiej Kędzierski1,A,B,C,D,F, Paweł Gać1,2,A,B,C,D,F, Martyna Głośna1,B,F, Rafał Poręba3,A,C,E,F, Krystyna Pawlas2,E,F

1 Centre for Diagnostic Imaging, 4th Military Hospital, Wrocław, Poland

2 Department of Hygiene, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

3 Department of Internal Medicine, Occupational Diseases and Hypertension, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland


Background. Aortic valve stenosis is among the most common valvular defects in developed countries. In the assessment of eligibility for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) is performed to determine the precise dimensions of the aortic valve, the topography of the aortic ostium and the ability to use various arterial access routes.
Objectives. To evaluate the relationships between the radiation dose and the repeatability of measurements of dimensions of the aortic valve in MDCT performed before TAVI.
Material and Methods. The study involved a group of 60 consecutive patients undergoing MDCT before TAVI. The radiation dose was expressed as computed tomography dose index volume (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP). The coefficient of variation (CV) of each measurement was defined as the standard deviation (SD) of the measurements/mean measurement × 100%, based on the measurements performed independently by 2 radiologists.
Results. A statistically significant negative linear correlation was observed between the DLP value of the MDCT before TAVI, and the CV of the measurement of the minimum dimension of the aortic annulus (r = −0.25; p < 0.05). Lower DLP doses of the MDCT before TAVI constitute an independent factor associated with a higher CV for the measurement of the minimum dimension of the aortic annulus.
Conclusion. It is proposed that tests using lower radiation doses should be followed by an assessment of the degree of repeatability of the aortic valve sizing.

Key words

aortic valve, coefficient of variation, radiation dose, TAVI, repeatability of measurement

References (19)

  1. Thaden JJ, Nkomo VT, Enriquez-Sarano M. The global burden of aortic stenosis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2014;56(6):565–571.
  2. Bajona P, Suri RM, Greason KL, Schaff HV. Outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement: The benchmark for percutaneous therapies. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2014;56(6):619–624.
  3. Krasopoulos G, Falconieri F, Benedetto U, et al. European real world trans-catheter aortic valve implantation: Systematic review and meta-analysis of European national registries. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;11(1):159.
  4. Davlouros PA, Mplani VC, Koniari I, Tsigkas G, Hahalis G. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement and stroke: A comprehensive review. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2018;15(1):95–104.
  5. Debonnaire P, Katsanos S, Delgado V. Computed tomography to improve TAVI outcomes. EuroIntervention. 2012;8(5):531–533.
  6. Achenbach S, Delgado V, Hausleiter J, Schoenhagen P, Min JK, Leipsic JA. SCCT expert consensus document on computed tomography imaging before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012;6(6):366–380.
  7. Mettler FA. Medical effects and risks of exposure to ionising radiation. J Radiol Prot. 2012;32(1):N9–N13.
  8. Vano E. Global view on radiation protection in medicine. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2011;147(1–2):3–7.
  9. Newman B, Callahan MJ. ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) CT 2011: Executive summary. Pediatr Radiol. 2011;41(Suppl 2):453–455.
  10. Cohen MD. ALARA, image gently and CT-induced cancer. Pediatr Radiol. 2015;45(4):465–470.
  11. Niwa O, Barcellos-Hoff MH, Globus RK, et al. ICRP Publication 131: Stem cell biology with respect to carcinogenesis aspects of radiological protection. Ann ICRP. 2015;44(3–4):347–357.
  12. Kalra MK, Sodickson AD, Mayo-Smith WW. CT radiation: Key concepts for gentle and wise use. Radiographics. 2015;35(6):1706–1721.
  13. Schmidkonz C, Marwan M, Klinghammer L, et al. Interobserver variability of CT angiography for evaluation of aortic annulus dimensions prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(9):1672–1678.
  14. Bernhardt P, Rodewald C, Seeger J, et al. Non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography is equal to contrast-enhanced multislice computed tomography for correct aortic sizing before transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Clin Res Cardiol. 2016;105(3):273–278.
  15. Husser O, Holzamer A, Resch M, et al. Prosthesis sizing for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Comparison of three dimensional transesophageal echocardiography with multislice computed tomography. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168(4):3431–3438.
  16. Husser O, Rauch S, Endemann DH, et al. Impact of three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography on prosthesis sizing for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;80(6):956–963.
  17. Ko SM, Song MG, Hwang HK. Bicuspid aortic valve: Spectrum of imaging findings at cardiac MDCT and cardiovascular MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(1):89–97.
  18. Siu SC, Silversides CK. Bicuspid aortic valve disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(25):2789–2800.
  19. Roberts WC, Ko JM. Frequency by decades of unicuspid, bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valves in adults having isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, with or without associated aortic regurgitation. Circulation. 2005;111(7):920–925.