Accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance generated 3D models of the aortic annulus compared to cardiovascular computed tomography generated 3D models.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Aortic Valve
/ diagnostic imaging
Aortic Valve Stenosis
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Models, Cardiovascular
Multidetector Computed Tomography
Predictive Value of Tests
Printing, Three-Dimensional
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Time Factors
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Workflow
3D printing
Aortic valve stenosis
Magnetic resonance imaging
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Journal
The international journal of cardiovascular imaging
ISSN: 1875-8312
Titre abrégé: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100969716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
13
03
2020
accepted:
26
05
2020
pubmed:
31
5
2020
medline:
29
9
2020
entrez:
31
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the accuracy of 3D models of the aortic-root generated from non-contrast cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Data were retrospectively collected from 30 consecutive patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement and had available records of both intra-operative assessment and pre-surgery annulus assessment by cardiovascular computed tomography (CCT) and CMR. The 3D models were independently segmented, modelled and printed by two blinded "manufacturers". The measurements on the models were carried out by two cardiac surgeons with Hegar dilator. Data were analyzed with non-parametric tests. There was no significant intra- or inter-observer variability (p ≥ 0.13). The agreement between the diameter of the 3D model derived from CMR images and either the anatomical reference of the intraoperative measurement (p = 0.10, r = 0.97) or the radiological reference of the 3D model generated from CCT (p = 0.71, r = 0.92) was very good. The process of segmentation plus the post-processing was about 17 ± 2 min for a model created by CMR, significantly higher than a model created from CCT (7 ± 2 min; p < 0.001). The printing time for a single model did not differ between the two modalities (p = 0.61) and was less than 60 min. The cost for a single model was approximately 0.5 €. 3D models generated from non-contrast CMR performed well when compared to the anatomical reference standard and are comparable to the pair CCT derived models.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32472299
doi: 10.1007/s10554-020-01902-9
pii: 10.1007/s10554-020-01902-9
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2007-2015Références
Giannopoulos AA, Mitsouras D, Yoo S-J et al (2016) Applications of 3D printing in cardiovascular diseases. Nat Rev Cardiol 13:701–718. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2016.170
doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2016.170
pubmed: 27786234
Ripley B, Kelil T, Cheezum MK et al (2016) 3D printing based on cardiac CT assists anatomic visualization prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 10:28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2015.12.004
doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2015.12.004
pubmed: 26732862
Gallo M, D’Onofrio A, Tarantini G et al (2016) 3D-printing model for complex aortic transcatheter valve treatment. Int J Cardiol 210:139–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.02.109
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.02.109
pubmed: 26945434
Kasel AM, Cassese S, Bleiziffer S et al (2013) Standardized imaging for aortic annular sizing: Implications for transcatheter valve selection. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 6:249–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2012.12.005
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2012.12.005
pubmed: 23489539
Francone M, Budde RPJ, Bremerich J et al (2020) CT and MR imaging prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation: standardisation of scanning protocols, measurements and reporting—a consensus document by the European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology (ESCR). Eur Radiol 30:2627–2650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06357-8
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06357-8
pubmed: 31489471
Pontone G, Andreini D, Bartorelli AL et al (2013) Comparison of accuracy of aortic root annulus assessment with cardiac magnetic resonance versus echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol 112:1790–1799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.07.050
doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.07.050
pubmed: 24045059
Faletti R, Gatti M, Salizzoni S et al (2016) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance as a reliable alternative to cardiovascular computed tomography and transesophageal echocardiography for aortic annulus valve sizing. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 32:1255–1263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-016-0899-8
doi: 10.1007/s10554-016-0899-8
pubmed: 27117264
Rogers T, Waksman R (2016) Role of CMR in TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 9:593–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.01.011
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.01.011
pubmed: 27151522
Cannaò PM, Muscogiuri G, Schoepf UJ et al (2018) Technical feasibility of a combined noncontrast magnetic resonance protocol for preoperative transcatheter aortic valve replacement evaluation. J Thorac Imaging 33:60–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0000000000000278
doi: 10.1097/RTI.0000000000000278
pubmed: 28549023
Wang J, Jagasia DH, Kondapally YR et al (2017) Comparison of non-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging to computed tomography angiography for aortic annular sizing before transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Invasive Cardiol 29:239–245
pubmed: 28570260
Wong S, Spina R, Toemoe S, Dhital K (2015) Is cardiac magnetic resonance imaging as accurate as echocardiography in the assessment of aortic valve stenosis? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 22(4):480–486. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivv362
doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivv362
pubmed: 26718319
Flett AS, Sado DM, Quarta G et al (2012) Diffuse myocardial fibrosis in severe aortic stenosis: an equilibrium contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 13:819–826. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jes102
doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jes102
pubmed: 22634740
Maragiannis D, Jackson MS, Igo SR et al (2015) Replicating patient-specific severe aortic valve stenosis with functional 3D modeling. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 8:e003626. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.115.003626
doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.115.003626
pubmed: 26450122
Qian Z, Wang K, Liu S et al (2017) Quantitative prediction of paravalvular leak in transcatheter aortic valve replacement based on tissue-mimicking 3D printing. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 10:719–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.04.005
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.04.005
pubmed: 28683947
Fujita T, Saito N, Minakata K et al (2017) Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the presence of a mechanical mitral valve prosthesis using a dedicated TAVI guidewire: utility of a patient-specific three-dimensional heart model. Cardiovasc Interv Ther 32:308–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-016-0426-9
doi: 10.1007/s12928-016-0426-9
pubmed: 27568401
Faletti R, Gatti M, Cosentino A et al (2018) 3D printing of the aortic annulus based on cardiovascular computed tomography: preliminary experience in pre-procedural planning for aortic valve sizing. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2018.05.016
doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2018.05.016
pubmed: 29857953
Rotman OM, Kovarovic B, Sadasivan C et al (2018) Realistic vascular replicator for TAVR procedures. Cardiovasc Eng Technol 9:339–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13239-018-0356-z
doi: 10.1007/s13239-018-0356-z
pubmed: 29654509
pmcid: 6095732
Hosny A, Dilley JD, Kelil T et al (2019) Pre-procedural fit-testing of TAVR valves using parametric modeling and 3D printing. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 13:21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2018.09.007
doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2018.09.007
pubmed: 30322772
Byrne N, Velasco Forte M, Tandon A et al (2016) A systematic review of image segmentation methodology, used in the additive manufacture of patient-specific 3D printed models of the cardiovascular system. JRSM Cardiovasc Dis 5:2048004016645467. https://doi.org/10.1177/2048004016645467
doi: 10.1177/2048004016645467
pubmed: 27170842
pmcid: 4853939
White D, Chelule KL, Seedhom BB (2008) Accuracy of MRI vs CT imaging with particular reference to patient specific templates for total knee replacement surgery. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg MRCAS 4:224–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.201
doi: 10.1002/rcs.201
Rathnayaka K, Momot KI, Noser H et al (2012) Quantification of the accuracy of MRI generated 3D models of long bones compared to CT generated 3D models. Med Eng Phys 34:357–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.07.027
doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.07.027
pubmed: 21855392
Van den Broeck J, Vereecke E, Wirix-Speetjens R, Vander Sloten J (2014) Segmentation accuracy of long bones. Med Eng Phys 36:949–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.03.016
doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.03.016
pubmed: 24768087
Renker M, Varga-Szemes A, Schoepf UJ et al (2016) A non-contrast self-navigated 3-dimensional MR technique for aortic root and vascular access route assessment in the context of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: proof of concept. Eur Radiol 26:951–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3906-x
doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3906-x
pubmed: 26188657
Bernhardt P, Rodewald C, Seeger J et al (2015) 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 105:273–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-015-0920-6
doi: 10.1007/s00392-015-0920-6
pubmed: 26395021
Ruile P, Blanke P, Krauss T et al (2015) Pre-procedural assessment of aortic annulus dimensions for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: comparison of a non-contrast 3D MRA protocol with contrast-enhanced cardiac dual-source CT angiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 17:458–466. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jev188
doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jev188
pubmed: 26219296
Potthast S, Mitsumori L, Stanescu LA et al (2010) Measuring aortic diameter with different MR techniques: comparison of three-dimensional (3D) navigated steady-state free-precession (SSFP), 3D contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA), 2D T2 black blood, and 2D cine SSFP. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 31:177–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22016
doi: 10.1002/jmri.22016
pubmed: 20027585
Varga-Szemes A, Wichmann JL, Schoepf UJ et al (2017) Accuracy of noncontrast quiescent-interval single-shot lower extremity MR angiography versus CT angiography for diagnosis of peripheral artery disease: comparison with digital subtraction angiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 10:1116–1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.09.030
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.09.030
pubmed: 28109932
Ternacle J, Krapf L, Mohty D et al (2019) Aortic stenosis and cardiac amyloidosis: JACC review topic of the week. J Am Coll Cardiol 74:2638–2651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.056
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.056
pubmed: 31753206
Ripley B, Levin D, Kelil T et al (2017) 3D printing from MRI Data: harnessing strengths and minimizing weaknesses. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 45:635–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25526
doi: 10.1002/jmri.25526
pubmed: 27875009
Huotilainen E, Paloheimo M, Salmi M et al (2014) Imaging requirements for medical applications of additive manufacturing. Acta Radiol Stockh Swed 55:78–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185113494198
doi: 10.1177/0284185113494198
Mitsouras D, Liacouras P, Imanzadeh A et al (2015) Medical 3D printing for the radiologist. R Radiogr 35(7):1965–1988. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015140320
doi: 10.1148/rg.2015140320
Blanke P, Naoum C, Webb J et al (2015) Multimodality imaging in the context of transcatheter mitral valve replacement: establishing consensus among modalities and disciplines. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 8:1191–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.08.004
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.08.004
pubmed: 26481845
Kamio T, Hayashi K, Onda T et al (2018) Utilizing a low-cost desktop 3D printer to develop a “one-stop 3D printing lab” for oral and maxillofacial surgery and dentistry fields. 3D Print Med 4:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-018-0028-5
doi: 10.1186/s41205-018-0028-5
pubmed: 30148203
pmcid: 6097791