Comparison of Aortic Annulus Diameter Measurement between Multi-Detector Computed Tomography and Echocardiography: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Accurate measurement of aortic annulus diameter is crucial for choosing suitable prosthetic size for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Several imaging methods are available for the measurement, but significant variability between different modalities has been observed. The purpose of this study was to systematically compare the measurements of aortic annulus diameter between multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT), transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), and transesophegeal echocardiography (TEE). METHODS PubMed and EMBASE databases between January 2000 and January 2012 were searched. We extracted data from eligible studies evaluating the aortic annulus diameter by MDCT and echocardiography (TTE, TEE, or both). We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the weighted mean differences of aortic annulus diameter measurement between MDCT, TTE, and TEE. RESULTS A total of 10 eligible studies involving 581 subjects with aortic valve stenosis were included. Aortic annulus diameter measured on coronal view by MDCT (25.3±0.52 mm) was respectively larger than that measured on sagittal view by MDCT (22.7±0.37 mm), TTE (22.6±0.28 mm), and TEE (23.1±0.32 mm). The weighted mean difference of aortic annulus diameter between coronal view by MDCT and TTE these two methods was 2.97 mm, followed by the weighted mean difference of 2.53 mm between coronal view and sagittal view by MDCT, and the mean difference of 1.74 mm between coronal view on MDCT and TEE (P<0.0001 for all). The weighted mean difference of aortic annulus diameter measurement between TEE and TTE was significant but somewhat small (0.45 mm, P = 0.007). CONCLUSION Aortic annulus diameter measured on coronal view by MDCT was robustly and significantly larger than that obtained on sagittal view by MDCT, TTE, or TEE. Such variability of aortic annulus diameter measurement by different imaging modalities cannot be ignored when developing optimal strategies for selection of prosthetic valve size in TAVI.