4.5 Article

Variations in rotation of the aortic root and membranous septum with implications for transcatheter valve implantation

期刊

HEART
卷 104, 期 12, 页码 999-1005

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312390

关键词

transcatheter valve interventions; cardiac computer tomographic (ct) imaging; aortic stenosis; endovascular procedures for aortic and vascular disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective It is intuitive to suggest that knowledge of the variation in the anatomy of the aortic root may influence the outcomes of transcatheter implantation of the aortic valve (TAVI). We have now assessed such variation. Methods We used 26 specimens of normal hearts and 78 CT data sets of adults with a mean age of 64 +/- 15years to measure the dimensions of the membranous septum and to assess any influence played by rotation of the aortic root, inferring the relationship to the atrioventricular conduction axis. Results The aortic root was positioned centrally in the majority of both cohorts, although with significant variability. For the cadaveric hearts, 14 roots were central (54%), 4 clockwise-rotated (15%) and 8 counterclockwise-rotated (31%). In the adult CT cohort, 44 were central (56%), 21 clockwise-rotated (27%) and 13 counterclockwise-rotated (17%). A mean angle of 15.5 degrees was measured relative to the right fibrous trigone in the adult CT cohort, with a range of -32 degrees to 44.7 degrees. The dimensions of the membranous septum were independent of rotation. Fibrous continuity between the membranous septum and the right fibrous trigone increased with counterclockwise to clockwise rotation, implying variation in the relationship to the atrioventricular conduction axis. Conclusions The central fibrous body is wider, providing greater fibrous support, in the setting of clockwise rotation of the aortic root. Individuals with this pattern may be more vulnerable to conduction damage following TAVI. Knowledge of such variation may prove invaluable for risk stratification.

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