Multimodality Imaging Assessment of Prosthetic Aortic Valve

  • Mohamed-Salah Annabi
  • Erwan Salaun
  • Bernard Cosyns
  • Patrizio Lancellotti
  • Philippe PibarotEmail author


Doppler-echocardiography is the primary imaging modality to assess the structural and functional integrity of aortic prosthetic heart valves (PHVs). A comprehensive approach that integrates several parameters of PHV structure and function measured in multiple views by transthoracic (TTE) or transoesophageal (TEE) echocardiography is essential to appropriately detect and quantitate PHV dysfunction and complications. Other imaging modalities such as cinefluoroscopy, MDCT, CMR, and nuclear imaging are valuable additional tools in the diagnosis and management of PHV dysfunction and complications, particularly when Doppler-echocardiography is inconclusive or discordant with clinical status. TEE, cinefluoroscopy, and MDCT are particularly helpful to identify the abnormalities in the morphology and/or mobility of the PHV leaflet/occluder as well as to assess the paravalvular lesions. CMR may be useful to corroborate the severity of PHV regurgitation, and particularly paravalvular regurgitation in patients with transcatheter aortic valves.


  1. 1.
    Lindman BR, Clavel MA, Mathieu P, Iung B, Lancellotti P, Otto CM, et al. Calcific aortic stenosis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;2:16006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Iung B, Baron G, Butchart EG, Delahaye F, Gohlke-Barwolf C, Levang OW, et al. A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: the Euro Heart Survey on valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2003;24(13):1231–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benjamin EJ, Blaha MJ, Chiuve SE, Cushman M, Das SR, Deo R, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2017 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;135(10):e146–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthetic heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management. Circulation. 2009;119(7):1034–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers J, Edvardsen T, Delgado V, Dulgheru R, et al. Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Interamerican Society of Echocardiography and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17(6):589–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnston DR, Soltesz EG, Vakil N, Rajeswaran J, Roselli EE, Sabik JF III, et al. Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves: implications from 12,569 implants. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99(4):1239–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bourguignon T, Bouquiaux-Stablo AL, Candolfi P, Mirza A, Loardi C, May MA, et al. Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve in aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99(3):831–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kodali SK, Williams MR, Smith CR, Svensson LG, Webb JG, Makkar RR, et al. Two-Year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(18):1686–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thourani VH, Kodali S, Makkar RR, Herrmann HC, Williams M, Babaliaros V, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis. Lancet. 2016;387(10034):2218–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, Makkar RR, Svensson LG, Kodali SK, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(17):1609–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Athappan G, Patvardhan E, Tuzcu EM, Svensson LG, Lemos PA, Fraccaro C, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: meta-analysis and systematic review of literature. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(15):1585–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    El-Hamamsy I, Eryigit Z, Stevens LM, Sarang Z, George R, Clark L, et al. Long-term outcomes after autograft versus homograft aortic root replacement in adults with aortic valve disease: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9740):524–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    David TE, David C, Woo A, Manlhiot C. The Ross procedure: outcomes at 20 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147(1):85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Briand M, Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Cartier P. Mid-term echocardiographic follow-up after Ross operation. Circulation. 2000;102(19 Suppl 3):III-10–I-4.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, Foster E, Gottdiener JS, Grayburn PA, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and Doppler ultrasound: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22(9):975–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mahjoub H, Mathieu P, Sénéchal M, Larose É, Dumesnil JG, Després JP, et al. ApoB/ApoA-I ratio is associated with increased risk of bioprosthetic valve degeneration. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(7):752–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mauri V, Reimanna A, Stern D, Scherner M, Kuhn E, Rudolph V, et al. Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the SAPIEN 3. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2016;9(21):2200–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pibarot P, Hahn RT, Weissman NJ, Monaghan MJ. Assessment of paravalvular regurgitation following TAVR: a proposal of unifying grading scheme. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(3):340–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Orsinelli DA. Prosthetic valve strands: clinically significant or irrelevant to management? J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22(8):895–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Valve prosthesis-patient mismatch, 1978 to 2011: from original concept to compelling evidence. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(13):1136–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Généreux P, Piazza N, Van Mieghem NM, Blackstone EH, et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;42(5):S45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clavel MA, Webb JG, Pibarot P, Altwegg L, Dumont É, Thompson C, et al. Comparison of the hemodynamic performance of percutaneous and surgical bioprostheses for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(20):1883–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shames S, Koczo A, Hahn R, Jin Z, Picard MH, Gillam LD. Flow characteristics of the SAPIEN aortic valve: the importance of recognizing in-stent flow acceleration for the echocardiographic assessment of valve function. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012;25(6):603–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nombela-Franco L, Ruel M, Radhakrishnan S, Webb JG, Hansen M, Labinaz M, et al. Comparison of hemodynamic performance of self-expandable corevalve versus balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN aortic valves inserted by catheter for aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(7):1026–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O'Sullivan KE, Gough A, Segurado R, Barry M, Sugrue D, Hurley J. Is valve choice a significant determinant of paravalular leak post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;45(5):826–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pibarot P, Garcia D, Dumesnil JG. Energy loss index in aortic stenosis: from fluid mechanics concept to clinical application. Circulation. 2013;127(10):1101–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Montorsi P, De Bernardi F, Muratori M, Cavoretto D, Pepi M. Role of cine-fluoroscopy, transthoracic, and transesophageal echocardiography in patients with suspected prosthetic heart valve thrombosis. Am J Cardiol. 2000;85(1):58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Muratori M, Montorsi P, Maffessanti F, Teruzzi G, Zoghbi WA, Gripari P, et al. Dysfunction of bileaflet aortic prosthesis: accuracy of echocardiography versus fluoroscopy. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2013;6(2):196–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Habets J, Symersky P, van Herwerden LA, de Mol BA, Spijkerboer AM, Mali WP, et al. Prosthetic heart valve assessment with multidetector-row CT: imaging characteristics of 91 valves in 83 patients. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(7):1390–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Konen E, Goitein O, Feinberg MS, Eshet Y, Raanani E, Rimon U, et al. The role of ECG-gated MDCT in the evaluation of aortic and mitral mechanical valves: initial experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(1):26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mahjoub H, Mathieu P, Larose É, Dahou A, Sénéchal M, Dumesnil JG, et al. Determinants of aortic bioprosthetic valve calcification assessed by multidetector CT. Heart. 2015;101(6):472–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jilaihawi H, Asch FM, Manasse E, Ruiz CE, Jelnin V, Kashif M, et al. Systematic CT methodology for the evaluation of subclinical leaflet thrombosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(4):461–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Makkar RR, Chakravarty T. Transcatheter aortic valve thrombosis; new problems, new insights. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(7):698–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tanis W, Habets J, van den Brink RB, Symersky P, Budde RP, Chamuleau SA. Differentiation of thrombus from pannus as the cause of acquired mechanical prosthetic heart valve obstruction by non-invasive imaging: a review of the literature. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;15(2):119–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Caruthers SD, Lin SJ, Brown P, Watkins MP, Williams TA, Lehr KA, et al. Practical value of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for clinical quantification of aortic valve stenosis: comparison with echocardiography. Circulation. 2003;108(18):2236–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Garcia J, Markl M, Schnell S, Allen B, Entezari P, Mahadevia R, et al. Evaluation of aortic stenosis severity using 4D flow jet shear layer detection for the measurement of valve effective orifice area. Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;32(7):891–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ribeiro HB, Le Ven F, Larose É, Dahou A, Nombela-Franco L, Urena M, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance versus transthoracic echocardiography for the assessment and quantification of aortic regurgitation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Heart. 2014;100(24):1924–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ribeiro HB, Orwat S, Hayek SS, Larose É, Babaliaros V, Dahou A, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance to evaluate aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(6):577–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Salaun E, Jacquier A, Theron A, Giorgi R, Lambert M, Jaussaud N, et al. Value of CMR in quantification of paravalvular aortic regurgitation after TAVI. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17(1):41–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Saby L, Laas O, Habib G, Cammilleri S, Mancini J, Tessonnier L, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography for diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis: increased valvular 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake as a novel major criterion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(23):2374–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dweck MR, Jenkins WS, Vesey AT, Pringle MA, Chin CW, Malley TS, et al. 18F-NaF uptake is a marker of active calcification and disease progression in patients with aortic stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(2):371–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dayan V, Vignolo G, Soca G, Paganini JJ, Brusich D, Pibarot P. Predictors and outcomes of prosthesis patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(8):924–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pibarot P, Weissman NJ, Stewart WJ, Hahn RT, Lindman BR, McAndrew T, et al. Incidence and sequelae of prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a PARTNER trial cohort—a analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(13):1323–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Roudaut R, Serri K, Lafitte S. Thrombosis of prosthetic heart valves: diagnosis and therapeutic considerations. Heart. 2007;93(1):137–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Latib A, Naganuma T, Abdel-Wahab M, Danenberg H, Cota L, Barbanti M, et al. Treatment and clinical outcomes of transcatheter heart valve thrombosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(4):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hansson NC, Grove EL, Andersen HR, Leipsic J, Mathiassen ON, Jensen JM, et al. Transcatheter aortic heart valve thrombosis: incidence, predisposing factors, and clinical implications. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(19):2059–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    del Trigo M, Munoz-Garcia AJ, Wijeysundera HC, Nombela-Franco L, Cheema A, Gutierrez E, et al. Incidence, timing and predictors of valve hemodynamic deterioration after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Multicenter registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(6):644–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Makkar RR, Fontana G, Jilaihawi H, Chakravarty T, Kofoed KF, De Backer O, et al. Possible subclinical leaflet thrombosis in bioprosthetic aortic valves. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(21):2015–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jenkins WS, Vesey AT, Shah AS, Pawade TA, Chin CW, White AC, et al. Valvular (18)F-fluoride and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake predict disease progression and clinical outcome in patients with aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(10):1200–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nombela-Franco L, Eltchaninoff H, Zahn R, Testa L, Leon MB, Trillo-Nouche R, et al. Clinical impact and evolution of mitral regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis. Heart. 2015;101(17):1395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, Bongiorni MG, Casalta JP, Del Zotti F, et al. 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: the task force for the management of infective endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur Heart J. 2015;36(44):3075–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Spethmann S, Dreger H, Schattke S, Baldenhofer G, Saghabalyan D, Stangl V, et al. Doppler haemodynamics and effective orifice areas of Edwards SAPIEN and CoreValve transcatheter aortic valves. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;13(8):690–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed-Salah Annabi
    • 1
  • Erwan Salaun
    • 1
  • Bernard Cosyns
    • 2
  • Patrizio Lancellotti
    • 3
    • 4
  • Philippe Pibarot
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of MedicineQuébec Heart and Lung Institute/Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Laval UniversityQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Cardiology Department (CHVZ)In Vivo Molecular and Cellular Imaging Center, Universitair Ziekenhuis BrusselBrusselBelgium
  3. 3.Department of CardiologyUniversity of Liège Hospital, GIGA Cardiovascular Sciences, Heart Valve Clinic, CHU Sart TilmanLiègeBelgium
  4. 4.GVM Care and Research, E.S. Health Science FoundationLugoItaly

Personalised recommendations