4.6 Article

Systematic CT Methodology for the Evaluation of Subclinical Leaflet Thrombosis

Journal

JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages 461-470

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.02.005

Keywords

aortic stenosis; aortic valve replacement; leaflet thrombosis; transcatheter aortic valve implantation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement; TAVI; TAVR

Funding

  1. Edwards LifeSciences
  2. Medtronic
  3. St. Jude Medical
  4. Philips

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Subclinical leaflet thrombosis was recently described in a randomized trial of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. It was subsequently demonstrated in a series of registries that this was a commonly observed imaging finding seen in all transcatheter and surgical bioprostheses. The phenomenon has aroused considerable interest due to the as-yet undefined risk for later clinical events and the possibility of pharmacological intervention with anticoagulation. Subclinical leaflet thrombosis is easily detected noninvasively by technically suitable computed tomography (CT) with a high degree of concordance to transesophageal echocardiography findings. The CT hallmarks were noted to be hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) associated with reduced leaflet motion (RELM). The combination of HALT and RELM signified hypoattenuation affecting motion, the standardized imaging endpoint used. This paper describes the systematic CT evaluation methodology that was devised during the Portico trial investigation and U.S. Food and Drug Administration submission; it also highlights the need for an ongoing discussion among experts to enable, with the help of the Valve Academic Research Consortium, standardization of reporting of this imaging finding to cater to the present and future needs of clinical trials. (C) 2017 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available