European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1963–1970 | Cite as

CT imaging before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using variable helical pitch scanning and its diagnostic performance for coronary artery disease

  • Shunsuke Matsumoto
  • Yoshitake Yamada
  • Masahiro Hashimoto
  • Teppei Okamura
  • Minoru Yamada
  • Fumiaki Yashima
  • Kentaro Hayashida
  • Keiichi Fukuda
  • Masahiro Jinzaki



To evaluate the effectiveness of CT before TAVI using variable helical pitch (VHP) scanning and its diagnostic performance for coronary artery disease (CAD).


Sixty patients (84.4 ± 4.6 years) scheduled for TAVI underwent CT using VHP scanning with the contrast material (CM) volume calculated as scanning time × weight [kg] × 0.06 mL. Retrospective electrocardiography (ECG)-gated scanning was utilized to examine the thorax, and non-ECG-gated scanning of the abdomen immediately followed. We analyzed CT attenuation values of the coronary arteries, aorta, iliac and femoral arteries. The coronary CT angiography images were evaluated for the presence of stenosis (≥50 %); invasive coronary angiography served as a reference standard.


The average attenuations of all of the arteries were greater than 400 HU. We could evaluate the peripheral access vessels and dimensions of the ascending aorta, aortic root, and aortic annulus in all patients. The average volume of CM was 38.7 ± 8.5 mL. On per-patient and vessel analysis, CT showed 91.7 % and 89.5 % sensitivity, and 91.3 % and 97.4 % negative predictive value (NPV).


CT using VHP scanning with an average CM volume of 38.7 mL is useful before TAVI and had a high sensitivity and NPV in excluding obstructive CAD.

Key Points

TAVI-planning CT using variable helical pitch (VHP) scanning is useful.

The average volume of contrast material was 38.7 ± 8.5 mL.

The average attenuations of all the arteries were >400 HU.

This CT had a high sensitivity and NPV for excluding obstructive CAD.


Multidetector computed tomography Contrast media Sensitivity and specificity Coronary artery disease Transcatheter aortic valve replacement 



Coronary artery diseasec


Coronary angiography


Contrast material


Computed tomography




Negative predictive value


Positive predictive value


Transcatheter aortic valve implantation



The scientific guarantor of this publication is Masahiro Jinzaki. Masahiro Jinzaki received a grant from Toshiba Medical Systems Japan. The remaining authors (Shunsuke Matsumoto, Yoshitake Yamada, Masahiro Hashimoto, Teppei Okamura, Minoru Yamada, Fumiaki Yashima, Kentaro Hayashida, and Keiichi Fukuda) have no financial disclosures to make and had complete unrestricted access to the study data at all stages of the study. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients in this study. No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: retrospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, performed at one institution.


  1. 1.
    Webb JG, Wood DA (2012) Current status of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 60:483–492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M et al (2010) Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 363:1597–1607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ et al (2011) Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 364:2187–2198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Achenbach S, Delgado V, Hausleiter J, Schoenhagen P, Min JK, Leipsic JA (2012) SCCT expert consensus document on computed tomography imaging before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 6:366–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yamamoto M, Hayashida K, Mouillet G et al (2013) Prognostic value of chronic kidney disease after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 62:869–877CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yamamoto M, Hayashida K, Mouillet G et al (2013) Renal function-based contrast dosing predicts acute kidney injury following transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6:479–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goel SS, Ige M, Tuzcu EM et al (2013) Severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease--implications for management in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement era: a comprehensive review. J Am Coll Cardiol 62:1–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris BS, De Cecco CN, Schoepf UJ et al (2015) Dual-source CT imaging to plan transcatheter aortic valve replacement: accuracy for diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease. Radiology 275:80–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Toggweiler S (2014) How to reduce costs in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Open Heart 1:e000203CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yamada Y, Jinzaki M, Hosokawa T et al (2012) Dose reduction in chest CT: comparison of the adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D, adaptive iterative dose reduction, and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Eur J Radiol 81:4185–4195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ, Zusmer NR, Viamonte M Jr, Detrano R (1990) Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 15:827–832CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCollough C, Cody D, Edyvean S et al (2008) The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT. Rep AAPM Task Group 23:1–28Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fei X, Du X, Yang Q et al (2008) 64-MDCT coronary angiography: phantom study of effects of vascular attenuation on detection of coronary stenosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:43–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hausleiter J, Meyer TS, Martuscelli E et al (2012) Image quality and radiation exposure with prospectively ECG-triggered axial scanning for coronary CT angiography: the multicenter, multivendor, randomized PROTECTION-III study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 5:484–493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cademartiri F, Maffei E, Palumbo AA et al (2008) Influence of intra-coronary enhancement on diagnostic accuracy with 64-slice CT coronary angiography. Eur Radiol 18:576–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Azzalini L, Abbara S, Ghoshhajra BB (2014) Ultra-low contrast computed tomographic angiography (CTA) with 20-mL total dose for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) planning. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38:105–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wuest W, Anders K, Schuhbaeck A et al (2012) Dual source multidetector CT-angiography before Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) using a high-pitch spiral acquisition mode. Eur Radiol 22:51–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toggweiler S, Gurvitch R, Leipsic J et al (2012) Percutaneous aortic valve replacement: vascular outcomes with a fully percutaneous procedure. J Am Coll Cardiol 59:113–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rodes-Cabau J, Webb JG, Cheung A et al (2010) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients at very high or prohibitive surgical risk: acute and late outcomes of the multicenter Canadian experience. J Am Coll Cardiol 55:1080–1090CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kok M, Turek J, Mihl C et al (2015) Low contrast media volume in pre-TAVI CT examinations. Eur Radiol 1–10Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dubourg B, Caudron J, Lestrat J-P et al (2014) Single-source dual-energy CT angiography with reduced iodine load in patients referred for aortoiliofemoral evaluation before transcatheter aortic valve implantation: impact on image quality and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 24:2659–2668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Staab W, Bergau L, Lotz J, Sohns C (2014) Prevalence of noncardiac findings in computed tomography angiography before transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 8:222–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shunsuke Matsumoto
    • 1
  • Yoshitake Yamada
    • 1
  • Masahiro Hashimoto
    • 1
  • Teppei Okamura
    • 1
  • Minoru Yamada
    • 2
  • Fumiaki Yashima
    • 3
  • Kentaro Hayashida
    • 3
  • Keiichi Fukuda
    • 3
  • Masahiro Jinzaki
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyKeio University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Research ParkKeio University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of CardiologyKeio University School of MedicineTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations