Abstract
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) requires thorough preprocedural planning with non-invasive imaging, including computed tomography (CT). The plethora of details obtained with thoraco-abdominal CT represents a challenge for accurate and synthetic decision-making. We devised and tested a comprehensive score suitable to summarize CT exams when planning TAVI. An original comprehensive scoring system (TAVI-CT score) was devised, including details on cardiac, aortic, iliac and femoral artery features. The score was applied to a prospectively collected series of patients undergoing TAVI at our institution, driving decision making on access and prosthesis choice. Different TAVI-CT score groups were compared in terms of procedural success, acute complications, and early clinical outcomes. We included a total of 200 undergoing TAVI between February 2020 and May 2021, with 74 (37.0%) having a low (0–2) TAVI-CT score, 50 (25.0%) having a moderate (3) TAVI-CT score, and 76 (38.0%) having a high (≥ 4) TAVI-CT score. Male gender was the only non-CT variable significantly associated with the TAVI-CT score (p = 0.001). As expected, access choice differed significantly across TAVI-CT scores (p = 0.009), as was device choice, with Portico more favored and Allegra less favored in the highest TAVI-CT score group (p = 0.036). Acute outcomes were similar in the 3 groups, including device and procedural success rates (respectively p = 0.717 and p = 1). One-month follow-up showed similar rates of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding, as well as of a composite safety endpoint (all p > 0.05). However, vascular complications were significantly more common in the highest TAVI-CT score group (p = 0.041). The TAVI-CT score is a simple scoring system that could be routinely applied to CT imaging for TAVI planning, if the present hypothesis-generating findings are confirmed in larger prospective studies.
Subject terms: Cardiology, Interventional cardiology
Introduction
The burden of cardiovascular disease and of degenerative aortic stenosis in particular continues to expand1–3. The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has significantly changed and expanded management options, such that this treatment is being offered to patients at prohibitive, high or even intermediate surgical risk2,4,5.
Preliminary planning based on multidimensional imaging is key to achieve favorable outcomes during the procedure as well as subsequently, with multidetector contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) playing a central role6–9. The benefits of CT include accurate appraisal of vessel dimensions, angles and calcifications, suitable for decision-making in terms of procedural details as well as TAVI device type and size, on top of overall risk assessment and prediction of complications such as permanent pacemaker implantation or prosthesis-patient mismatch10–18. However, CT exams may provide a confounding and overwhelming plethora of parameters and measurements, limiting the eventual informativeness of a CT report, leading to inappropriate decisions and strategies, with several apparently useful features actually proving of limited predictive accuracy9,19.
Despite many scores suitable for overall risk prediction in patients with severe aortic stenosis and/or those undergoing TAVI20, there is limited guidance on how to synthesize the vast number of measurements generated with CT in patients planned for TAVI21–23. Building upon extensive experience, thorough review of the literature, and consensus between high volume operators, we generated pre hoc a scoring system, named TAVI-CT score, capable of summarizing poignantly the main findings stemming from a comprehensive CT test for TAVI planning, applying it consistently for several months.
We hereby aim at appraising the role of the TAVI-CT score to inform on procedural success, early and long-term outcomes, as well as choice of access site.
Methods
Design and patients
This study is a prospective single-center registry using a validated online platform for data collection24–26. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. The study was approved by the Comitato Etico Campania Nord, Caserta, Italy, and all patients provided written informed consent. We included all patients undergoing TAVI for severe aortic stenosis or mixed aortic disease at our institution, which is a large-volume tertiary care center in Southern Italy, specialized in structural heart intervention, with all TAVI performed by two experienced operators (AG, NC), after heart team appraisal. Patients undergoing valve-in-valve TAVI or with missing CT images were excluded (Fig. 1S).
Before TAVI, all patients were referred for contrast enhanced CT imaging of the chest, abdomen and ilio-femoral axes using 64-row or higher scans, with established methods employed throughout for CT acquisition16,27,28. Images were processed offline by a single experience TAVI operator (NC), which had originally devised a summary score, using established methods, and as follows (Fig. 2S)16,27,28.
TAVI-CT score
In particular, nodular calcium was appraised according to Azzalini et al., awarding 3 points in case of involvement of 3 cuspids, 2 points in case of involvement of 2 cuspids, 1 point in case of involvement of 1 cuspid, and 0 points in case of no evidence of nodular calcium29. Subvalvular calcium yielded a 1 point score, whereas its absence yielded a 0 point score16. The ratio of minimum aortic valve anulus diameter to maximum aortic valve anulus diameter, labelled as elliptical index, was used to generate a 3-tier score, with 2 points yielded in case of an elliptical index ≤ 0.7, 1 point yielded in case of an elliptical index > 0.7 and ≤ 0.8, and 0 points yielded in case of an elliptical index > 0.830,31. One point was yielded in case of an aortic isthmus angle ≤ 95°, with 0 points yielded in case of an aortic isthmus angle > 95°32,33. One point was yielded in case of an aorta-ventricle angle > 55°, with 0 points yielded in case of an aorta-ventricle angle ≤ 55°. Bicuspid aortic valve disease using diastolic reconstructions, supplemented by systolic reconstructions when appropriate, according to Alkhadi et al., awarding 1 point in case of bicuspid valve, and 0 points in case of tricuspid valve34. Coronary height was measured according to Gooley et al., yielding 1 point in case of height ≤ 10 mm, and 0 points in case of height > 10 mm35. Ilio-femoral calcification was appraised according to Okuyama et al., awarding 2 points in case of moderate or severe calcification, 1 point in case of mild calcification, and 0 points in case of no calcification36. Access size ≤ 6.0 mm yielded a 1 point, whereas > 6.0 mm yielded 0 points37. Finally, planned aortic, apical, carotid, caval or subclavian access yielded 2 points, planned axillary access yielded 1 point, and planned femoral access yielded 0 points.
Procedures
Procedural planning, including access, approach, predilation, device type and size, postdilation, and ancillary management were all at operators’ discretion, with non-femoral access typically reserved for patients with peripheral artery disease and challenging ilio-femoral anatomy38. Similarly, device choice tended to prefer Portico (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) devices in cases of challenging aortic valve anatomy.
Outcomes
Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up, as well as outcome adjudication, was performed in keeping with the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) 3 statement39. Specifically, we appraised the 1-month rate of death, cardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding (distinguishing minor, major and disabling), and vascular complication (distinguishing minor and major). In addition, we appraised major adverse events, defined as the composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding, and vascular complication. Notably, events were internally adjudicated by a team of expert clinical researchers, who were not blinded to patient or procedural features.
Statistical analysis
Continuous variables are reported for descriptive purposes as mean ± standard deviation. Categorical variables are reported accordingly using count (%). For inferential purposes, continuous variables were compared with analysis of variance, whereas categorical variables were compared with Fisher exact test for categorical variables. In addition, areas under the curve (AUC), with 95% confidence intervals, of the receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves were computed, providing also accompanying bivariate plots. A complete case analysis approach was used, without missing data imputation. Statistical significance for hypothesis testing was set at the 2-tailed 0.05 level, without multiplicity adjustment. Computations were performed with Stata 13 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).
Results
A total of 200 patients were enrolled, undergoing TAVI between February 2020 and May 2021 (Tables 1, 2, Fig. 1S). TAVI-CT scores were unevenly distributed, with most patients having a 0–3 score (Table 1S, Fig. 3S). Accordingly, we grouped patients according to different scores as follows: the first group with a 0–2 TAVI-CT score (low TAVI-CT score), the second group with a 3 TAVI-CT score (intermediate TAVI-CT score), and the third group with a TAVI-CT score greater than 3 (high TAVI-CT score). Most baseline features were similar at bivariate analysis according to these 3 groups, except for female gender, which was more prevalent among those with a low TAVI-CT score (p = 0.001). Notably, the most common determinants of a intermediate or high TAVI-CT score were nodular or subvalvular calcium, elliptical annuli, unfavorable angles, ilio-femoral calcification, and small access sizes. The highest scoring patients were a 75-year-old man with an 8 score, and two 75-plus-old men with a 7 score.
Table 1.
Baseline features according to TAVI-CT (transcatheter aortic valve implantation-computed tomography) score.
| Feature | Low score (0–2) | Intermediate score (3) | High score (≥ 4) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | 74 | 50 | 76 | – |
| Female gender | 51 (68.9%) | 34 (68.0%) | 32 (42.21%) | 0.001 |
| Age (years) | 81.1 ± 5.4 | 81.0 ± 6.5 | 80.4 ± 6.3 | 0.754 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 26.9 ± 4.3 | 27.5 ± 4.4 | 27.0 ± 4.4 | 0.748 |
| Diagnosis | 0.831 | |||
| Aortic stenosis | 38 (51.4%) | 23 (46.0%) | 38 (50.0%) | |
| Mixed aortic valve disease | 36 (48.7%) | 27 (54.0%) | 38 (50.0%) | |
| Surgical risk | 0.148 | |||
| Inoperable | 1 (1.4%) | 0 | 1 (1.4%) | |
| High | 43 (58.1%) | 36 (76.6%) | 53 (71.6%) | |
| Intermediate | 30 (40.5%) | 11 (23.4%) | 20 (27.0%) | |
| New York Heart Association class | 0.207 | |||
| I | 1 (1.4%) | 0 | 0 | |
| II | 65 (87.4%) | 38 (76.0%) | 63 (82.9%) | |
| III | 8 (10.8%) | 12 (24.0%) | 12 (15.8%) | |
| IV | 0 | 0 | 1 (1.3%) | |
| Logistic EuroSCORE | 15.3 ± 10.2 | 17.0 ± 9.5 | 17.7 ± 13.7 | 0.444 |
| EuroSCORE II | 2.98 ± 2.08 | 3.46 ± 2.57 | 3.85 ± 4.76 | 0.304 |
| Coronary artery disease | 7 (9.5%) | 7 (14.0%) | 14 (18.4%) | 0.285 |
| Prior cardiac surgery | 5 (6.8%) | 7 (14.0%) | 9 (11.8%) | 0.394 |
| Prior cerebrovascular event | 0.871 | |||
| No | 69 (93.2%) | 44 (88.0%) | 69 (90.7%) | |
| Transient ischemic attack | 1 (1.4%) | 2 (4.0%) | 2 (2.6%) | |
| Stroke | 4 (5.4%) | 4 (8.0%) | 5 (6.6%) | |
| Peripheral artery disease | 13 (17.6%) | 9 (18.0%) | 35 (46.1%) | |
| Estimated glomerular filtration rate (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 61.7 ± 17.3 | 59.6 ± 20.1 | 66.7 ± 21.6 | 0.114 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 18 (24.3%) | 16 (32.0%) | 25 (32.9%) | 0.454 |
Table 2.
Imaging features according to TAVI-CT (transcatheter aortic valve implantation-computed tomography) score.
| Feature | Low score (0–2) | Intermediate score (3) | High score (≥ 4) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | 74 | 50 | 76 | – |
| Aortic valve area (cm2) | 0.63 ± 0.14 | 0.61 ± 0.10 | 0.60 ± 0.13 | 0.586 |
| Left ventricular ejection fraction (%) | 52.2 ± 7.7 | 51.2 ± 8.4 | 51.1 ± 8.8 | 0.693 |
| Mean valve gradient (mm Hg) | 49.3 ± 19.2 | 46.6 ± 19.7 | 48.3 ± 15.1 | 0.707 |
| Aortic regurgitation | 0.417 | |||
| None | 22 (29.7%) | 17 (34.0%) | 24 (31.6%) | |
| 1+ | 26 (35.1%) | 21 (42.0%) | 28 (36.8%) | |
| 2+ | 20 (27.0%) | 5 (10.0%) | 16 (21.1%) | |
| 3+ | 6 (8.1%) | 7 (14.0%) | 8 (10.5%) | |
| Porcelain aorta | 0 | 1 (2.0%) | 3 (4.0%) | 0.296 |
| TAVI-CT score | 1.6 ± 0.6 | 3 ± 0 | 4.9 ± 1.2 | < 0.001 |
| 0 | 3 (4.1%) | 0 | 0 | < 0.001 |
| 1 | 23 (31.1%) | 0 | 0 | |
| 2 | 48 (64.9%) | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | 0 | 50 (100%) | 0 | |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 42 (55.3%) | |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 14 (18.4%) | |
| > 5 | 0 | 0 | 20 (26.2%) | |
| TAVI-CT score components | ||||
| Nodular calcium (scored from 0 to 3) | < 0.001 | |||
| None | 68 (93.2%) | 38 (76.0%) | 34 (44.7%) | |
| 1 cuspid involved | 5 (6.9%) | 12 (24.0%) | 32 (42.1%) | |
| 2 cuspids involved | 0 | 0 | 10 (13.2%) | |
| 3 cuspids involved | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Subvalvular calcium (scored from 0 to 1) | 2 (2.7%) | 4 (8.0%) | 26 (34.7%) | < 0.001 |
| Elliptical index (scored from 0 to 2) | < 0.001 | |||
| ≤0.7 | 20 (27.0%) | 8 (16.0%) | 6 (7.9%) | |
| >0.7 to ≤0.8 | 49 (66.2%) | 23 (46.0%) | 31 (40.8%) | |
| >0.8 | 5 (6.8%) | 19 (38.0%) | 39 (51.3%) | |
| Aortic isthmus angle ≤ 95° (scored from 0 to 1) | 3 (5.0%) | 15 (31.9%) | 23 (32.4%) | < 0.001 |
| Aorta-ventricle angle ≤ 55° (scored from 0 to 1) | 41 (66.1%) | 34 (70.8%) | 62 (83.8%) | 0.051 |
| Bicuspid (scored from 0 to 1) | 0 | 3 (6.1%) | 5 (6.6%) | 0.049 |
| Coronary height ≤ 10 mm (scored from 0 to 1) | 2 (2.7%) | 0 | 10 (13.2%) | 0.003 |
| Ilio-femoral calcification (scored from 0 to 2) | < 0.001 | |||
| None | 67 (90.5%) | 37 (74.0%) | 40 (53.3%) | |
| Mild | 7 (9.5%) | 11 (22.0%) | 21 (28.0%) | |
| Moderate or severe | 0 | 2 (4.0%) | 14 (18.7%) | |
| Vascular endograft (scored from 0 to 1) | 0 | 1 (2.0%) | 5 (6.6%) | 0.045 |
| Access size ≤ 6.0 mm (scored from 0 to 1) | 0 | 3 (6.0%) | 12 (15.8%) | < 0.001 |
| Planned access (scored from 0 to 2) | < 0.001 | |||
| Femoral | 74 (100%) | 48 (96.0%) | 63 (82.9%) | |
| Axillary | 0 | 2 (4.0%) | 9 (11.8%) | |
| Aortic, apical, caval, carotid, or subclavian | 0 | 0 | 4 (5.3%) |
Procedural features were also similar across the 3 groups (Table 3), except for access site, with non-femoral access more common in patients with a high TAVI-CT score (p = 0.009), and device choice, with Portico being relatively more common in the same group of patients (p = 0.036). Irrespectively, acute results were similarly satisfactory in the 3 groups, with device success ranging between 98.0% and 100% (p = 0.717) and procedural success 100% in all groups (p = 1).
Table 3.
Procedural features according to TAVI-CT (transcatheter aortic valve implantation-computed tomography) score.
| Feature | Low score (0–2) | Intermediate score (3) | High score (≥ 4) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | 74 | 50 | 76 | – |
| Anesthesia | 0.427 | |||
| Local | 72 (97.3%) | 49 (98.0%) | 75 (98.7%) | |
| Spinal | 0 | 1 (2.0%) | 0 | |
| General | 2 (2.7%) | 0 | 1 (1.3%) | |
| Actual access | 0.009 | |||
| Femoral | 74 (100%) | 48 (96.0%) | 67 (88.2%) | |
| Axillary | 0 | 2 (4.0%) | 7 (9.2%) | |
| Subclavian | 0 | 0 | 2 (2.6%) | |
| Percutaneous approach | 74 (100%) | 50 (100%) | 76 (100%) | 1 |
| Predilation | 54 (73.0%) | 42 (84.0%) | 61 (80.3%) | 0.326 |
| Device | 0.036 | |||
| Allegra | 6 (8.1%) | 5 (10.0%) | 1 (1.3%) | |
| Evolut Pro/R | 28 (37.8%) | 10 (20.0%) | 23 (30.3%) | |
| Portico | 40 (54.1%) | 35 (70.0%) | 52 (68.4%) | |
| Bailout valve-in-valve | 0 | 1 (2.0%) | 1 (1.3%) | 0.717 |
| Postdilation | 37 (50.0%) | 31 (62.0%) | 48 (63.2%) | 0.222 |
| Postdilation balloon diameter (mm) | 23.4 ± 2.1 | 23.9 ± 2.4 | 23.8 ± 2.0 | 0.565 |
| Hemostasis with 2 ProGlides | 74 (100%) | 50 (100%) | 76 (100%) | 1 |
| Contrast volume (mL) | 77.2 ± 18.3 | 76.9 ± 18.3 | 79.2 ± 15.3 | 0.689 |
| Fluoroscopy time (min) | 17.2 ± 4.2 | 17.1 ± 4.1 | 18.5 ± 7.4 | 0.296 |
| Procedural time (min) | 54.9 ± 8.4 | 55.2 ± 7.2 | 56.5 ± 8.5 | 0.437 |
| Device success | 74 (100%) | 49 (98.0%) | 75 (98.7%) | 0.717 |
| Procedural success | 74 (100%) | 50 (100%) | 76 (100%) | 1 |
One-month follow-up confirmed the favorable clinical results obtained acutely and during hospital stay (Table 4), which was not significantly different (p = 0.427). Notably, the rate of major adverse events, while non-significantly different (p = 0.390), appear to increase progressively from the low score group (2.7%) to the intermediate score group (6.0%) and to the high score group (7.9%) (Fig. 1). Indeed, only the rate of vascular complications appeared significantly different in the 3 groups, with no vascular complication in the low or intermediate score groups, and 4 minor vascular complications in the high score group (p = 0.041). Similar findings were obtained when discounting planned access from the computation of the TAVI-CT score (Table 2S).
Table 4.
Clinical and imaging outcomes at 1-month follow-up according to TAVI-CT (transcatheter aortic valve implantation-computed tomography) score.
| Feature | Low score (0–2) | Intermediate score (3) | High score (≥ 4) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | 74 | 50 | 76 | – |
| Total length of stay (days) | 5.4 ± 1.9 | 5.7 ± 1.8 | 5.9 ± 2.2 | 0.329 |
| Major adverse event* | 2 (2.7%) | 3 (6.0%) | 6 (7.9%) | 0.390 |
| Death | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (2.0%) | 1 (1.3%) | 1 |
| Cardiac death | 1 (1.4%) | 0 | 1 (1.3%) | 1 |
| Myocardial infarction | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (2.0%) | 0 | 0.526 |
| Stroke | 0 | 1 (2.0%) | 0 | 0.250 |
| Bleeding | 0.469 | |||
| None | 74 (100%) | 49 (98%) | 74 (97.4%) | |
| Type 1 | 0 | 1 (2.0%) | 2 (2.6%) | |
| Type 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Type 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Type 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Vascular complication | 0.041 | |||
| None | 74 (100%) | 50 (100%) | 72 (94.7%) | |
| Minor | 0 | 0 | 4 (5.3%) | |
| Major | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Surgical conversion | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Aortic dissection | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Anulus rupture | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Bailout percutaneous coronary intervention | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (2.0%) | 0 | 0.526 |
| Permanent pacemaker implantation | 6 (8.1%) | 6 (12.0%) | 10 (13.2%) | 0.599 |
| Left ventricular ejection fraction (%) | 52.7 ± 8.0 | 52.1 ± 9.3 | 52.3 ± 8.9 | 0.902 |
| Peak gradient (mm Hg) | 13.9 ± 5.1 | 13.5 ± 5.6 | 13.9 ± 6.1 | 0.888 |
| Mean gradient (mm Hg) | 7.9 ± 3.2 | 7.6 ± 3.5 | 7.9 ± 3.5 | 0.830 |
| Aortic regurgitation | 0.113 | |||
| None | 15 (20.6%) | 5 (10.0%) | 15 (19.7%) | |
| 1+ | 55 (75.3%) | 44 (88.0%) | 53 (69.7%) | |
| 2+ | 3 (4.1%) | 1 (2.0%) | 8 (10.5%) |
*Composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, bleeding, or vascular complication.
Figure 1.
Risk of events according to TAVI-CT (transcatheter aortic valve implantation-computed tomography) score.
Analysis of diagnostic accuracy confirmed the previous results (Table 3S), showing that the TAVI-CT score could have a limited predictive role for major adverse events (e.g. AUC = 0.66 [0.50–0.83]), whereas the predictive accuracy for vascular complications was substantial, with AUC = 0.88 (0.71–1.00) for TAVI-CT score (Fig. 4S), AUC = 0.90 (0.74–1.00) for TAVI-CT score excluding planned access (Fig. 5S), AUC = 0.63 (0.56–0.70) for the abridged, 3-tiered version of the TAVI-CT score, and AUC = 0.62 (0.48–0.77) for the abridged, 3-tiered version of the TAVI-CT score.
Further proof of the usefulness of the TAVI-CT score is that none of its component, individually, was significantly associated with major adverse events (Table 4S). Conversely, elliptical index, ilio-femoral calcification, and access size ≤ 6.0 mm were all individually and significantly associated with the risk of vascular complications (all p < 0.05, Table 5S).
Discussion
The success of TAVI continuous momentously, thanks to improvements in patient selection, device evolution, procedural refinements, and ad hoc ancillary medical management2,4,5,24–26,38. Indeed, with the ongoing expansion in the indications for TAVI, it is crucial to ensure adequate pre-procedural evaluation and planning are performed, in a logic of tailored access and device choice. Computed tomography offers a wealth of information suitable to guide operators envisioning TAVI, either before heart team discussion, or after the decision for this treatment has been taken28. Yet, CT interpretation may be challenging and overwhelming even for expert readers and operators.
While to date efforts at synthesizing the appraisal of pre-TAVI CT have been mainly limited as specific analysis (e.g. valve calcium quantification), there is a paucity of studies aimed at summarizing all features which may impact on operative and post-operative management.
In the present work, we originally aimed at devising, pre hoc, a semiquantitative scoring system suitable to capture all important features and assessments stemming from pre-TAVI CT, labelled TAVI-CT score, ranging from coronary height to ilio-femoral vessels. The score is very easily performed and informative, ranging from 0 to a theoretical maximum of 14. Intriguingly, the score was not associated with baseline features, except for female gender (with women typically having lower scores). Parsimoniously exploiting the score to generate 3 groups, lead to a low TAVI-CT score group (with scores ranging from 0 to 2), an intermediate TAVI-CT score group (with scores of 3), and a high TAVI-CT score group (with scores of 4 or more).
Female gender was associated with lower TAVI-CT scores, despite the typically smaller vessels of these patients. Indeed, this finding is reassuring and confirms the rosy outlook of TAVI even in female patients with severe aortic valve disease at intermediate, high or prohibitive surgical risk. Access and device choice were different in the TAVI-CT score groups, with non-femoral access and Portico more common in patients with intermediate or high scores, as appropriately expected given the need to minimize access site complications and ensure a flexible device was chosen for TAVI. Clinical outcomes were largely similar across the score groups, despite a linear, albeit non-significant, increase in major adverse events, and a significant increase in vascular complications in patients with higher TAVI-CT scores.
The goal of improving the evaluation of patients with indication to TAVI based on pre-procedural CT is meaningful and worthy of pursue. Indeed, other researchers have attempted at capitalizing the diagnostic yield of CT using more readily applicable and sanctionable scores21,29,40,41. For instance, the ilio-femoral tortuosity (IFT) score has been recently proposed by Mach et al., and proved to predict a composite of bleeding or access complications21. Notably, the TAVI-CT score should not be viewed as an alternative to established operative or prognostic scores, such as the EuroSCORE, the STS score, or, as recently suggested, the CHA2DS2-VASC score, the HAS-BLED score, or the combined CHADS-BLED score, as well as more novel modeling approaches20,42–44. Instead, the TAVI-CT score should be considered as an adjunct tool suitable to simplify pre-procedural evaluation, choice between TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement, and detailed TAVI planning. Specifically, we may suggest that patients with a low TAVI-CT score could be treated with default femoral access and with any TAVI device (Fig. 2). Instead, in patients with intermediate or high TAVI-CT scores, axillary access could be considered more liberally in case of peripheral artery disease, and more flexible devices such as Portico could be used routinely24.
Figure 2.
Approach to compute and apply the TAVI-CT (transcatheter aortic valve implantation-computed tomography) score for decision-making.
This work has several limitations, including the small sample size, the low event rates, the absence of independent event adjudication by a clinical event committee, and the lack of machine learning analysis to quantify candidate factors for entry and specific weighing in the eventual score. Indeed, the score was devised by an experienced operator pre-hoc, thus representing an expert synthesis of his expertise in evaluating pre-TAVI CT and weighing salient features for TAVI planning. Furthermore, we cannot exclude that decision-making based on expert knowledge led to procedural adjustments eventually mitigating the adverse impact of a specific TAVI-CT feature or a globally increased score. Accordingly, this work represents a pilot study, and multicenter studies are warranted to confirm or disprove the present findings. Indeed, it is plausible that only some of the components of the TAVI-CT score are actually informative for procedural planning or outcomes.
In conclusion, the TAVI-CT score is a simple scoring system that could be routinely applied to CT imaging for TAVI planning, if the present hypothesis-generating findings are confirmed in larger prospective studies.
Supplementary Information
Author contributions
A.G. has conceived and designed the work. N.C. contributed to the study design and to collect data. P.F. , A.M., M.C. , M.A., P.L.N. , L.B. have collected data. G.B.Z. and S.G performed the statistical analysis and interpretation of the data. M.P. and L.B have revised the work.
Competing interests
All the other authors have no competing interest but Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai who has consulted for Cardionovum, CrannMedical, Innovheart, Meditrial, Opsens Medical, and Replycare and Arturo Giordano who is proctor for Abbott and Biosensor.
Footnotes
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-022-11788-3.
References
- 1.Saglietto A, Manfredi R, Elia E, D'Ascenzo F, Ferrari GM DE, Biondi-Zoccai G, Munzel T. Cardiovascular disease burden: Italian and global perspectives. Minerva Cardiol. Angiol. 2021;69(3):231–240. doi: 10.23736/S2724-5683.21.05538-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Giordano A, Biondi-Zoccai G, Frati G. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Clinical, Interventional, and Surgical Perspectives. Springer; 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Matteucci A, Bonanni M, Versaci F, Frati G, Peruzzi M, Sangiorgi G, Biondi-Zoccai G, Massaro G. Cardiovascular medicine: A year in review. Minerva Cardiol. Angiol. 2021 doi: 10.23736/S2724-5683.21.05816-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Makkar RR, Thourani VH, Mack MJ, Kodali SK, Kapadia S, Webb JG, Yoon SH, Trento A, Svensson LG, Herrmann HC, Szeto WY, Miller DC, Satler L, Cohen DJ, Dewey TM, Babaliaros V, Williams MR, Kereiakes DJ, Zajarias A, Greason KL, Whisenant BK, Hodson RW, Brown DL, Fearon WF, Russo MJ, Pibarot P, Hahn RT, Jaber WA, Rogers E, Xu K, Wheeler J, Alu MC, Smith CR, Leon MB, PARTNER 2 Investigators Five-year outcomes of transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020;382(9):799–809. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, Makkar R, Kodali SK, Russo M, Kapadia SR, Malaisrie SC, Cohen DJ, Pibarot P, Leipsic J, Hahn RT, Blanke P, Williams MR, McCabe JM, Brown DL, Babaliaros V, Goldman S, Szeto WY, Genereux P, Pershad A, Pocock SJ, Alu MC, Webb JG, Smith CR, PARTNER 3 Investigators Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019;380(18):1695–1705. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Perry TE, George SA, Lee B, Wahr J, Randle D, Sigurðsson G. A guide for pre-procedural imaging for transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients. Perioper Med. 2020;9(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s13741-020-00165-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mangieri A, Laricchia A, Montalto C, Palena ML, Fisicaro A, Cereda A, Sticchi A, Latib A, Giannini F, Khokhar AA, Colombo A. Patient selection, procedural planning and interventional guidance for transcatheter aortic valve intervention. Minerva Cardiol. Angiol. 2021 doi: 10.23736/S2724-5683.21.05573-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Wiewiórka Ł, Trębacz J, Sobczyński R, Stąpór M, Ostrowska-Kaim E, Konstanty-Kalandyk J, Musiał R, Gackowski A, Malinowski K, Kleczyński P, Żmudka K, Kapelak B, Legutko J. Computed tomography guided tailored approach to transfemoral access in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Cardiol. J. 2021 doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2021.0053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Harries I, Weir-McCall JR, Williams MC, Shambrook J, Roditi G, Bull R, Morgan-Hughes GJ, Nicol ED, Moss AJ. CT imaging prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the UK. Open Heart. 2020;7(1):e001233. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2019-001233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Duran C, Masood I, Duran A, Frank L, Saleem A, Muthupillai R, Cheong BYC. Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) angiography in the pre-procedural assessment of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Eur. J. Med. 2020;52(1):86–93. doi: 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.18329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Harbaoui B, Ghigo N, Boussel L, Liebgott H, Souteyrand G, Durand E, Eltchaninoff H, Lefevre T, Courand PY, Lantelme P. Prognostic significance of vascular and valvular calcifications in low- and high-gradient aortic stenosis. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging. 2021 doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jeab039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Maier O, Piayda K, Afzal S, Polzin A, Westenfeld R, Jung C, Zeus T, Antoch G, Kelm M, Veulemans V. Computed tomography derived predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021 doi: 10.1002/ccd.29805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Leone PP, Regazzoli D, Pagnesi M, Sanz-Sanchez J, Chiarito M, Cannata F, Van Mieghem NM, Barbanti M, Tamburino C, Teles R, Adamo M, Miura M, Maisano F, Kim WK, Bedogni F, Stefanini G, Mangieri A, Giannini F, Colombo A, Reimers B, Latib A, TAVI-SMALL Investigators Predictors and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch after self-expandable TAVR in small annuli. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021;14(11):1218–1228. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.03.060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hokken TW, van Wiechen MP, Ooms JF, El Azzouzi I, de Ronde M, Kardys I, Budde R, Daemen J, de Jaegere PP, Van Mieghem NM. Impact of Interventricular membranous septum length on pacemaker need with different Transcatheter aortic valve implantation systems. Int. J. Cardiol. 2021;333:152–158. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.02.080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Tang G, Lv Q, He X. Comparison of postoperative outcomes following multidetector computed tomography based vs transesophageal echocardiography based annulus sizing for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Echocardiography. 2020;37(10):1617–1626. doi: 10.1111/echo.14684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Francone M, Budde RPJ, Bremerich J, Dacher JN, Loewe C, Wolf F, Natale L, Pontone G, Redheuil A, Vliegenthart R, Nikolaou K, Gutberlet M, Salgado R. 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. 2020;30(5):2627–2650. doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06357-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Blanke P, Schoepf UJ, Leipsic JA. CT in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Radiology. 2013;269(3):650–669. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13120696. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Delgado V, Ng ACT, van de Veire NR, van der Kley F, Schuijf JD, Tops LF, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Role of multi-detector row computed tomography to evaluate prosthesis positioning and deployment in relation to valve function. Eur. Heart J. 2010;31(9):1114–1123. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Gamet A, Chatelin A, Mergy J, Bécat P, Roumegou P, Christiaens L. Does aortic valve calcium score still predict death, cardiovascular outcomes, and conductive disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with new-generation prostheses? J. Cardiovasc. Echogr. 2020;30(2):88–92. doi: 10.4103/jcecho.jcecho_9_20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Agasthi P, Ashraf H, Pujari SH, Girardo ME, Tseng A, Mookadam F, Venepally NR, Buras M, Khetarpal BK, Allam M, Eleid MF, Greason KL, Beohar N, Siegel RJ, Sweeney J, Fortuin FD, Holmes DR, Jr, Arsanjani R. Artificial intelligence trumps TAVI2-SCORE and CoreValve score in predicting 1-year mortality post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Cardiovasc. Revasc. Med. 2021;24:33–41. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2020.08.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Mach M, Poschner T, Hasan W, Szalkiewicz P, Andreas M, Winkler B, Geisler S, Geisler D, Rudziński PN, Watzal V, Strouhal A, Adlbrecht C, Delle-Karth G, Grabenwöger M. The Iliofemoral tortuosity score predicts access and bleeding complications during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Data from the VIenna Cardio Thoracic aOrtic valve registrY (VICTORY) Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 2021;51(6):e13491. doi: 10.1111/eci.13491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Heitkemper M, Sivakumar S, Hatoum H, Dollery J, Lilly SM, Dasi LP. Simple 2-dimensional anatomic model to predict the risk of coronary obstruction during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.01.085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Tretter JT, Mori S, Anderson RH, Taylor MD, Ollberding N, Truong V, Choo J, Kereiakes D, Mazur W. Anatomical predictors of conduction damage after transcatheter implantation of the aortic valve. Open Heart. 2019;6(1):e000972. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2018-000972. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Corcione N, Morello A, Ferraro P, Cimmino M, Albanese M, Ausiello A, Pepe M, Biondi-Zoccai G, Giordano A. The novel FlexNav delivery system for transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the portico device: A case series. J. Invasive Cardiol. 2021;33(6):E474–E478. doi: 10.25270/jic/20.00513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Corcione N, Morello A, Ferraro P, Cimmino M, Testa L, Petronio AS, Iadanza A, Bartorelli AL, Berti S, Regazzoli D, Romagnoli E, Spaccarotella C, Tespili M, Pepe M, Frati G, Biondi-Zoccai G, Giordano A, Registro Italiano GISE sull’Impiantodi Valvola Aortica Percutanea (RISPEVA) Study Investigators Comparing the safety and effectiveness of five leading new-generation devices for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Twelve-month results from the RISPEVA study. J. Invasive Cardiol. 2021;33(5):E320–E329. doi: 10.25270/jic/20.00438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Corcione N, Testa A, Ferraro P, Morello A, Cimmino M, Albanese M, Giordano S, Bedogni F, Iadanza A, Berti S, Regazzoli D, Trani C, Pepe M, Frati G, Biondi Zoccai G, Giordano A, Registro Italiano GISE sull'impianto di Valvola Aortica Percutanea (RISPEVA) Study Investigators Baseline, procedural and outcome features of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to different body mass index categories. Minerva Med. 2021;112(4):474–482. doi: 10.23736/S0026-4806.21.07379-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Willson AB, Webb JG, Freeman M, Wood DA, Gurvitch R, Thompson CR, et al. Computed tomography-based sizing recommendations for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable valves: Comparison with transesophageal echocardiography and rationale for implementation in a prospective trial. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 2012;6(6):406–414. doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2012.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Achenbach S, Delgado V, Hausleiter J, Schoenhagen P, Min JK, Leipsic JA. SCCT expert consensus document on computed tomography imaging before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 2012;6(6):366–380. doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2012.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Azzalini L, Ghoshhajra BB, Elmariah S, Passeri JJ, Inglessis I, Palacios IF, Abbara S. The aortic valve calcium nodule score (AVCNS) independently predicts paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 2014;8(2):131–140. doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2013.12.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Jilaihawi H, Kashif M, Fontana G, Furugen A, Shiota T, Friede G, et al. Cross-sectional computed tomographic assessment improves accuracy of aortic annular sizing for transcatheter aortic valve replacement and reduces the incidence of paravalvular aortic regurgitation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2012;59(14):1275–1286. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Salgado RA, Leipsic JA, Shivalkar B, Ardies L, Van Herck PL, Op de Beeck BJ, Vrints C, Rodrigus I, Parizel PM, Bosmans J. Preprocedural CT evaluation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: What the radiologist needs to know. Radiographics. 2014;34(6):1491–1514. doi: 10.1148/rg.346125076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.De Stasio V, Cavallo AU, Spiritigliozzi L, Pugliese L, Presicce M, Di Donna C, Di Tosto F, Pasqualetto M, D'Errico F, Benelli L, Sbordone FP, Grimaldi F, Cerimele C, Vanni G, Romeo F, Floris R, Garaci F, Chiocchi M. Relationship between septo-valvular angle and pacemaker implantation risk after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A preliminary study. J. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021 doi: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000001181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Gorla R, De Marco F, Garatti A, Bianchi G, Popolo Rubbio A, Acerbi E, Casenghi M, Spagnolo P, Brambilla N, Testa L, Agnifili ML, Tusa M, Bedogni F. Impact of aortic angle on transcatheter aortic valve implantation outcome with Evolut-R, Portico, and Acurate-NEO. Catheter Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021;97(1):E135–E145. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28957. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Alkadhi H, Leschka S, Trindade PT, Feuchtner G, Stolzmann P, Plass A, Baumueller S. Cardiac CT for the differentiation of bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves: Comparison with echocardiography and surgery. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2010;195(4):900–908. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.3813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Gooley RP, Cameron JD, Soon J, Loi D, Chitale G, Syeda R, Meredith IT. Quantification of normative ranges and baseline predictors of aortoventricular interface dimensions using multi-detector computed tomographic imaging in patients without aortic valve disease. Eur. J. Radiol. 2015;84(9):1737–1744. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.05.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Okuyama K, Jilaihawi H, Kashif M, Takahashi N, Chakravarty T, Pokhrel H, Patel J, Forrester JS, Nakamura M, Cheng W, Makkar RR. Transfemoral access assessment for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Evidence-based application of computed tomography over invasive angiography. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging. 2014;8(1):e001995. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.114.001995. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Durand E, Penso M, Hemery T, Levesque T, Moles G, Tron C, Bouhzam N, Bettinger N, Wong S, Dacher JN, Eltchaninoff H. Standardized measurement of femoral artery depth by computed tomography to predict vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2021;145:119–127. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.12.089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Morello A, Corcione N, Ferraro P, Cimmino M, Pepe M, Cassese M, Frati G, Biondi-Zoccai G, Giordano A. The best way to transcatheter aortic valve implantation: From standard to new approaches. Int. J. Cardiol. 2021;322:86–94. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.08.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Généreux P, Piazza N, Alu MC, Nazif T, Hahn RT, Pibarot P, Bax JJ, Leipsic JA, Blanke P, Blackstone EH, Finn MT, Kapadia S, Linke A, Mack MJ, Makkar R, Mehran R, Popma JJ, Reardon M, Rodes-Cabau J, Van Mieghem NM, Webb JG, Cohen DJ, Leon MB, VARC-3 WRITING COMMITTEE Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: Updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. Eur. Heart J. 2021;42(19):1825–1857. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa799. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Lantelme P, Eltchaninoff H, Rabilloud M, Souteyrand G, Dupré M, Spaziano M, Bonnet M, Becle C, Riche B, Durand E, Bouvier E, Dacher JN, Courand PY, Cassagnes L, Dávila Serrano EE, Motreff P, Boussel L, Lefèvre T, Harbaoui B. Development of a risk score based on aortic calcification to predict 1-year mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging. 2019;12(1):123–132. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.03.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Miyasaka M, Sharma RP, Maeno Y, Taguri M, Yoon SH, Kawamori H, Tada N, Kato S, Israr S, Nomura T, Ochiai T, Abramowitz Y, Chakravarty T, Nakamura M, Cheng W, Friedman JD, Berman DS, Makkar RR. Investigation of computed-tomography based predictors of acute stroke related to transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Aortic wall plaque thickness might be a predictive parameter of stroke. J. Invasive Cardiol. 2020;32(2):E18–E26. doi: 10.25270/jic/19.00263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Veulemans V, Maier O, Bosbach G, Hellhammer K, Afzal S, Piayda K, Polzin A, Jung C, Westenfeld R, Mehdiani A, Lichtenberg A, Kelm M, Zeus T. Impact of Combined "CHADS-BLED" score to predict short-term outcomes in transfemoral and transapical aortic valve replacement. J. Interv. Cardiol. 2020;2020:9414397. doi: 10.1155/2020/9414397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Navarese EP, Zhang Z, Kubica J, Andreotti F, Farinaccio A, Bartorelli AL, Bedogni F, Rupji M, Tomai F, Giordano A, Reimers B, Spaccarotella C, Wilczek K, Stepinska J, Witkowski A, Grygier M, Kukulski T, Wanha W, Wojakowski W, Lesiak M, Dudek D, Zembala MO, Berti S, a Joint Effort of the Italian and Polish Cardiac Interventional Societies Development and validation of a practical model to identify patients at risk of bleeding after TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021;14(11):1196–1206. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.03.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Pepe M, Corcione N, Petronio AS, Berti S, Iadanza A, Morello A, Nestola PL, Napoli G, Ferraro P, Cimmino M, Bartorelli AL, Bedogni F, Stefanini GG, Trani C, De Giosa M, Biondi-Zoccai G, Giordano A. Assessing the best prognostic score for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (from the RISPEVA Registry) Am. J. Cardiol. 2021;144:91–99. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.12.068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.