4.5 Article

Cardiac CT to assess the risk of coronary compression in patients evaluated for percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 110, 期 -, 页码 88-96

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.11.018

关键词

Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation; Coronary compression; Coronary arteries; Right ventricular outflow tract; Pulmonary trunk

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Coronary compression (CC) is a life threatening complication that can occur during percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation (PPVI). We describe our experience using cardiac CT prior to PPVI to identify patients at high CC-risk due to a close relationship between the coronary arteries and pulmonary trunk (PT). Methods: A retrospective evaluation of candidates for PPVI who underwent CT prior to the procedure was done. Measurements of PT were performed using double oblique reconstructed images, with special attention to the stenotic tract of the PT. The analysis of coronary arteries included detection of anomalies of origin and course and assessment of their relationship with the PT, measuring the minimum distance between the coronary artery and the intended site of the future percutaneous valve implantation. Results: CT analysis was performed for 52 patients. Thirty patients underwent PPVI after CT and 22 didn't In 6/22 cases the reason not to receive a PPVI was high CC-risk detected at CT. In 6 other patients CT detected an intermediate CC-risk but the test balloon performed during angiography prior to valve placement was safe and the patients successfully underwent the procedure. None of the patients deemed as no CC-risk at CT had CC during PPVI. Conclusion: CT can detect patients with high and intermediate CC-risk and therefore may identify which patients are unlikely to undergo successful PPVI and those who need a careful analysis with balloon testing. CT can also rule out CC-risk identifying those patients in which balloon inflation testing could be omitted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据