Relevance of Motion Artifacts in Planning Computed Tomography on Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Stefan Toggweiler; Lucca Loretz; Mathias Wolfrum; Ralf Buhmann; Jürgen Fornaro; Matthias Bossard; Adrian Attinger-Toller; Florim Cuculi; Justus Roos; Jonathon A Leipsic; Federico Moccetti

doi:10.1016/j.shj.2023.100214

Relevance of Motion Artifacts in Planning Computed Tomography on Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Struct Heart. 2023 Aug 3;7(6):100214. doi: 10.1016/j.shj.2023.100214. eCollection 2023 Nov.

Affiliations

¹ Heart Center Lucerne, Cardiology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
² Department of Radiology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
³ Department of Radiology, St. Paul's Hospital and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Abstract

Background: Motion artifacts in planning computed tomography (CT) for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can potentially skew measurements required for procedural planning. Whether such artifacts may affect safety or efficacy has not been studied.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 852 consecutive patients (mean age, 82 years; 47% women) undergoing TAVI-planning CT at a tertiary care center. Two independent observers divided CTs according to the presence of motion artifacts at the annulus level (Motion vs. Normal group). Endpoints included surrogate markers for inappropriate valve selection: annular rupture, valve embolization or misplacement, need for a new permanent pacemaker, paravalvular leak (PVL), postprocedural transvalvular gradient, all-cause death.

Results: Forty-six (5.4%) patients presented motion artifacts on TAVI-planning CT (Motion group). These patients had more preexisting heart failure, moderate-severe mitral regurgitation, and atrial fibrillation. Interobserver variability of annular measurement (Normal vs. Motion group) did not differ for mean annular diameter but was significantly different for perimeter and area. Presence of motion artifacts on planning CT did not affect the prevalence of PVL (≥moderate PVL 0% vs. 2.5% p = 0.5), mean transvalvular gradient (6±3 mmHg vs 7±5 mmHg, p = 0.1), or the need for additional valve implantation (0% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.6). One annular rupture occurred (Normal group). Pacemaker implantation, procedural duration, hospital stay, 30-day outcomes, and all-cause mortality did not differ between the groups.

Conclusions: Motion artifacts on planning CT were found in about 5% of patients. Measurements for valve selection were possible without the need for repeat CT, with mean diameter-derived annulus measurement being the most accurate. Motion artifacts were not associated with worse outcomes.

Keywords: Aortic stenosis; Computed tomography; Motion artifacts; Preprocedural planning; TAVI.