Focus on the annuloplasty in aortic valve repair: implications from a quantitative multislice computed tomography analysis

Background: Aortic valve (AV) repair has evolved towards a treatment alternative in young patients with AV regurgitation and was accompanied by the development of surgical repair strategies. An efficient and reproducible AV annulus stabilization (i.e., annuloplasty) has been proposed as a crucial component to obtain the long-term stability of AV repair. However, there is still major controversy regarding the most appropriate annuloplasty approach. We aimed to address AV annulus structures which are relevant for AV annuloplasty, based on MS-CT data. Methods: We retrospectively analysed 326 consecutive patients with AV disease who all underwent preprocedural MS-CT examination. Study cohort was subdivided according to the underlying AV pathology: 25 patients with aortic regurgitation (AR subgroup) (mean age 73±11 years, 68% male), 243 patients with aortic stenosis (AS subgroup) (73±11 years, 68% male) and 58 patients with normally functioning AV (normal AV subgroup) (mean age 76±7 years, 36% male). We systematically measured maximum and minimum AV annulus diameter, AV annular area, projected AV annular perimeter and anatomic AV annular perimeter during mid-systole using MS-CT data. Based on these measurements, AV annular eccentricity index was calculated [(max AV annulus × 100/min AV annulus) − 100]. Furthermore, we assessed the tissue components of AV annular plane, distinguishing between muscular and fibrous portions of the basal ring. Results: AV annular eccentricity index was significantly larger in the normal AV-subgroup as compared to the AR-subgroup (33.2%±10.7% vs. 27.8%±9.2%; P=0.048) as well as to the AS-subgroup (33.2%±10.7% vs. 20.4%±8.8%; P<0.001). AV annular area was significantly larger in the AR subgroup as compared to the AS subgroup (5.7±1.0 vs. 5.1±0.8 cm2; P=0.003) and normal AV subgroup (5.7±1.0 vs. 4.8±0.8 cm2; P<0.001). Intramuscular plane in the right coronary sinus was significantly increased in the AR subgroup vs. AS subgroup (12.8±2.7 vs. 7.5±3.6 mm; P<0.001) and normal AV subgroup (12.8±2.7 vs. 8.7±3.0 mm; P<0.001). Muscular component of the basal ring was significantly reduced in the AR subgroup vs. AS subgroup (37.5%±5.1% vs. 40.5%±5.5%; P=0.039) and normal AV subgroup (37.5%±5.1% vs. 44.3%±10.2%; P=0.001). Conclusions: MS-CT enables a quantitative analysis of aortic root anatomy which may have an impact on AV annuloplasty. AR patients differ significantly regarding their AV annular dimensions and basal ring morphology as compared to the AS patients and those with a normal AV function. These findings may have major implications in tricuspid AV repair when designing the most appropriate AV annulus stabilisation technique.