How accurate is intraprocedural transthoracic echocardiography in assessing aortic regurgitation after transcathether aortic valve implantation? A single center experience
Claire B. Ren, Mark M.P. van den Dorpel, Marcel Geleijnse, Nicolas M. van Mieghem
{"title":"How accurate is intraprocedural transthoracic echocardiography in assessing aortic regurgitation after transcathether aortic valve implantation? A single center experience","authors":"Claire B. Ren, Mark M.P. van den Dorpel, Marcel Geleijnse, Nicolas M. van Mieghem","doi":"10.1016/j.ijcard.2025.133565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Aim Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) has been commonly used to assess the aortic regurgitation (AR), particularly paravalvular leakage, during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We sought to investigate the accuracy of intraprocedural TTE to grade the AR severity by comparing with discharge TTE assessments.</div><div>Methods Consecutive patients received balloon expandable (BE) or self-expanding (SE) transcatheter heart valves with both intraprocedural TTE and discharge TTE AR assessments were included. The AR was assessed following the standard approach intraprocedurally by one dedicated interventional echocardiographer and at discharge by one echo-cardiologist.</div><div>Results In total 404 patients, the AR grade was concordant in about 2/3 of the population and discordance was mainly underestimation of AR severity with intraprocedural TTE. None or trace intraprocedural AR was more seen in patients with BE valves and the concordance with discharge assessment was also higher in BE valve group than that of the SE valve group. The discordance was mainly underestimation too, regardless of valve types.</div><div>Conclusion in our single-center real-world experience, the AR assessed with intraprocedural TTE was discordant with the discharge TTE in about 1/3 of the cases with predominantly underestimation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13710,"journal":{"name":"International journal of cardiology","volume":"438 ","pages":"Article 133565"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167527325006084","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) has been commonly used to assess the aortic regurgitation (AR), particularly paravalvular leakage, during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We sought to investigate the accuracy of intraprocedural TTE to grade the AR severity by comparing with discharge TTE assessments.
Methods Consecutive patients received balloon expandable (BE) or self-expanding (SE) transcatheter heart valves with both intraprocedural TTE and discharge TTE AR assessments were included. The AR was assessed following the standard approach intraprocedurally by one dedicated interventional echocardiographer and at discharge by one echo-cardiologist.
Results In total 404 patients, the AR grade was concordant in about 2/3 of the population and discordance was mainly underestimation of AR severity with intraprocedural TTE. None or trace intraprocedural AR was more seen in patients with BE valves and the concordance with discharge assessment was also higher in BE valve group than that of the SE valve group. The discordance was mainly underestimation too, regardless of valve types.
Conclusion in our single-center real-world experience, the AR assessed with intraprocedural TTE was discordant with the discharge TTE in about 1/3 of the cases with predominantly underestimation.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Cardiology is devoted to cardiology in the broadest sense. Both basic research and clinical papers can be submitted. The journal serves the interest of both practicing clinicians and researchers.
In addition to original papers, we are launching a range of new manuscript types, including Consensus and Position Papers, Systematic Reviews, Meta-analyses, and Short communications. Case reports are no longer acceptable. Controversial techniques, issues on health policy and social medicine are discussed and serve as useful tools for encouraging debate.