Interventional Echocardiography: Field of Advanced Imaging to Support Structural Heart Interventions

Login or register to view PDF.
Abstract

Multimodality imaging, particularly echocardiography, is paramount in planning and guiding structural heart disease interventions. Transesophageal echocardiography remains unique in its ability to provide real-time 2D and 3D imaging of valvular heart disease and anatomic cardiac defects, which directly impacts the strategy and outcome of these procedures. This review summarizes the role of transesophageal echocardiography in patients undergoing the most common structural heart disease interventions.

Disclosure
Roy Arjoon and Ashley Brogan have no conflicts of interest to declare. Lissa Sugeng has worked on the Siemens Healthineers Speaker’s Bureau and Advisory Board and on the Philips Healthcare Advisory Board.
Correspondence
Lissa Sugeng, Yale School of Medicine, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, P.O. Box 208017, New Haven, CT 06520-8017. E: lissa.sugeng@yale.edu
Received date
04 August 2017
Accepted date
19 October 2017
Citation
US Cardiology Review 2018;12(1):22–7.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15420/usc.2017:16:1
Acknowledgement
Ashley Brogan and Roy Arjoon both contributed equally in writing this manuscript.

Cardiovascular medicine has undergone a momentous change over the past 2 decades with the development of percutaneous transcatheter interventions for structural heart disease. This field has the greatest growth in interventional cardiology for the foreseeable future.1–3 The number of patients with acquired valvular heart disease and adult congenital heart disease will only rise in the future as the population expands and ages. Multimodality imaging using cardiac CT, echocardiography, fluoroscopy, and fusion imaging are necessary in structural heart disease interventions. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), in particular, provides unique real-time 3D echocardiography of valvular heart disease and anatomic cardiac defects before, during, and after transcatheter therapies. This review will summarize the role of TEE in patients undergoing percutaneous mitral valve (MV) repair (MitraClip®), left atrial appendage (LAA) closure, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and atrial septal defect (ASD)/patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion

Approximately 2.7 million–6.1 million people in the US have atrial fibrillation (AF).4 As the population ages, this number is expected to increase. AF increases the risk of ischemic stroke by five-fold and the strokes are typically more severe compared to non-AF-related strokes.5 Though oral anticoagulation (OAC) is the mainstay treatment for stroke prevention, up to 40 % of patients do not receive OAC, typically due to contraindications or bleeding risk.6 LAA occlusion devices are an alternative for patients with contraindications or prohibitive bleeding risk on OAC. The most common percutaneous occlusion devices include the WATCHMAN device (Boston Scientific Corp.), the AMPLATZER™ Cardiac Plug (St. Jude Medical), and the LARIAT® system (SentreHEART, Inc.). The LARIAT system may be used off-label for a similar indication, though the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has raised safety concerns in this setting.7 This review will focus on the role of TEE with the WATCHMAN device, since it is the only FDA-approved device for stroke prevention in non-valvular AF.

TEE assessment prior to WATCHMAN device placement includes: evaluation for LAA thrombus; LAA size, morphology, and the number and depth of the lobes; and assessment of other structural abnormalities. While meticulous evaluation for thrombus in the LAA from 0° to 180° is performed, the LAA ostium width and depth are measured at 0°, 45°, 90°, and 135°, see Figure 1. The ostium width is measured from the level of the left main artery or mitral annulus to a point 2 cm below the tip of the pulmonary vein ridge. The depth is measured from the ostium to the LAA apex. The maximum LAA ostium width must be ≥17 mm or ≤31 mm to accommodate a device and the depth must be at least as long as the maximum LAA ostium width.8–10 Real-time 3D TEE has emerged as a potentially faster and more accurate way to assess the size and morphology of the LAA. Small studies suggest the real-time 3D TEE assessment of LAA morphology is equivalent to MRI or CT, and superior to assessment using 2D TEE imaging.11–13 Three-dimensional assessment may also obviate the need to assess the LAA at multiple angles to obtain the maximum LAA ostium width and LAA depth.12,13 More widespread use of 3D TEE could potentially reduce cost and patients’ exposure to radiation/contrast; nonetheless, it is limited to centers with access to such technology.

Figure 1: Transesophageal Echocardiography Measurement of Left Atrial Appendage Prior to Watchman Procedure

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Figure 2: Transesophageal Echocardiography Evaluation of the WATCHMAN Device Post-procedure

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Intraprocedurally, TEE is used to initially guide transseptal puncture and to confirm optimal positioning of the delivery system. Optimal device placement is when the axis of the device aligns with the long axis of the LAA. Color flow evaluation over the device is needed prior to final deployment to assess for adequate LAA occlusion, defined as mild leak or less into the LAA with a jet diameter <3 mm, see Figure 2. Finally, at the end of the procedure, TEE is used to assess for changes in transmitral and pulmonary vein flow, along with potential complications including pericardial effusion, tamponade or device migration.8–10 Patients remain on aspirin and OAC for at least 30 days after device implantation, and a TEE is done to assess for thrombus and residual peri-device leak, with the same protocol at baseline. If residual flow into the LAA is >5 mm in diameter, then the patient should continue or restart anticoagulation.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Calcific aortic stenosis (AS) remains the most common form of valvular disease in developed countries, affecting approximately 2 % of people >65 years.14 Surgical aortic valve replacement is typically considered the treatment of choice for patients with symptomatic severe AS. However, many of these patients are considered inoperable due to significant surgical risk. The development of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) gave high and intermediate risk patients an equally efficacious, but less invasive, option for valve replacement.15 TAVR requires multimodality imaging support. Specifically, echocardiography plays an essential role in the identification of patients with severe AS, sizing of the prosthesis, intraprocedural guidance, and the follow-up of prosthetic valve function.

Two-dimensional and Doppler echocardiography remain the workhorses for the diagnosis of severe AS. TEE with Doppler is often less accurate due to difficulties with ultrasound beam alignment. However, TEE planimetry provides an alternative method for patients with suboptimal transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) evaluation. It correlates quite well with a continuity equation-derived valve area on TTE and with valve area derived from the Gorlin formula in the catheterization lab.16 Three-dimensional TEE, which obviates geometric assumptions of the elliptical aortic apparatus, may provide an even more accurate assessment of the left ventricular outflow tract/aortic annulus, aortic root, and aortic valve. Several studies have looked at annular sizing between 3D TEE and multidetector CT (MDCT) for TAVR size selection prior to implant, see Figure 3A and B. This question is important, since undersizing can result in device embolization or significant paravalvular leak, an independent predictor of mortality after TAVR.17 Similarly, oversizing can result in conduction abnormalities and aortic root rupture.17 Unfortunately, no clear answer exists. The majority of studies suggest that 3D TEE results in undersizing of the aortic annulus compared to MDCT, though with small absolute differences.18–22 In contrast, some small studies showed good correlation between 3D TEE and MDCT for annular sizing and for predicting paravalvular leak.23–26 At least some of this difference may be related to the lower spatial resolution of 3D TEE at the time, image dropout secondary to significant calcification at the annulus or aortic valve, and center experience.27 Notably, heavy aortic calcification limits 3D TEE evaluation of planimetry and annulus measurements due to image dropout. TEE with 3D and automated software, see Figure 3C, may ultimately provide pre-TAVR patients with ‘one-stop shopping’ for the evaluation of the entire aortic apparatus with excellent temporal and good spatial resolution, while avoiding contrast and radiation.

Concomitant TEE during the TAVR procedure aids in the placement of the valve, allows visualization of balloon aortic valvuloplasty, helps with sizing, identifies heavily calcified aortic annuli, identifies shallow coronary ostia origin, and provides rapid feedback to the interventionalist on complications. However, the routine use of intraprocedural TEE versus TTE proves controversial. The general trend is to use TEE-guided TAVR placement during cases necessitating general anesthesia, and those with transapical, transaortic or subclavian approaches for image quality reasons. A number of studies have shown that conscious sedation is becoming more prevalent with a transfemoral approach, and outcomes have been similar despite greater use of TTE over TEE.28–32 Regardless of the specific modality chosen, echocardiography plays an essential role in TAVR. The interventionalist and echocardiographer should localize the prosthesis below the aortic annulus and monitor its relationship to the MV and left ventricular outflow tract. The team must also look for the prosthesis to assume its predicted circular shape in the short axis view.9,33 Once implanted, TEE or TTE is used to confirm optimal anatomical position, aortic valve area >1.2 cm2, mean gradient <20 mmHg, peak velocity <3 m/sec, and absence of moderate or severe regurgitation.34

TTE is performed at 24 hours, 30 days, and then at least annually after the procedure. Evaluation must include TAVR function (aortic valve area, mean gradient, peak gradient and peak velocity), the presence of intravalvular/ paravalvuar regurgitation, right ventricular systolic pressure, and potential for other complications. These complications include left ventricular dysfunction related to coronary ostium occlusion, prosthesis migration/ embolization, MV damage, tamponade, and aortic root damage.35

Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair

Degenerative MV disease is the most common cause of mitral regurgitation (MR).36 Surgical (MV) repair is the standard treatment to improve symptoms and prevent heart failure, with low mortality and high success rates at “mitral referral centers.” However, for patients who are high risk for surgery, palliative treatment with medications was the only choice until 2013, when MitraClip was FDA-approved for patients with symptomatic severe degenerative MR. The Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in hEart failuRE: Outcome Study With Tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial in 2008 was the first randomized controlled trial comparing surgery versus percutaneous repair in high-risk patients. Most recently, a 5-year follow-up for durability was evaluated. While there were high rates of initial 3+ or 4+ MRs, this did not significantly increase over time. Additionally, there were no differences in long-term survival, left ventricular function, or dimensions. Although surgery has superior outcomes, there is evidence that a percutaneous alternative is safe, improves heart failure symptoms, and left ventricular dimensions.37

Identifying patients who meet the criteria for MitraClip starts with transthoracic echo imaging. Based on quantitative and qualitative parameters, patients must have moderate to severe or severe MR due to degenerative MV disease, left ventricular dimensions <6 cm, and left ventricular ejection fraction >20 %. TEE imaging is needed to confirm the severity of regurgitation, the jet origin (which ideally should be from the A2–P2 scallops), and the MV area (which should be >3 cm2). The prolapse or flail gap should be <10 mm and the width <15 mm. Patients with these echo criteria included in the EVEREST cohort were more likely to have a successful intervention without the need for a recurrent procedure. Patients with functional MR have recently been included in the Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT) trial. On TEE imaging, a coaptation length of ≥2 mm and a depth of <11 mm were needed for inclusion in the study.38–40

Relative echocardiographic contraindications include pathology at the body of the leaflet, severe calcifications at the site of grasping zone, small (<3.5 cm2) valve area and high gradients (>4 mmHg), small grasping zone <7 mm, Barlow’s disease with significant regurgitation of A1–P1 or A3–P3 scallops, and rheumatic disease.40 Though most of the assessment is 2D, 3D echocardiography should be used in the initial evaluation for MitraClip, since it may provide a better assessment of the etiology of regurgitation, dimensions of the MV, and an alternative to estimating severity.38–40

Figure 3: Transesophageal Echocardiography and Computed Tomography Evaluation of the Aortic Annulus

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Three-dimensional TEE is an essential tool for the interventionalist in MitraClip procedures. Close collaboration between the primary operator and the echocardiographer is necessary to achieve successful placement. A complete 2D/3D TEE study prior to the procedure is paramount. Evaluation of the all pulmonary veins, in addition to all MR parameters, is invaluable to judge the success of the MitraClip procedure. TEE guidance begins with the transseptal puncture. Localization of the optimum position is posterior and superior in the septum with a height 3.5–4.0 cm from the MV annular plane depending on the MV pathology.41–43 Functional MR is due to tethering of the MV causing the mitral leaflets to be lower in the ventricle versus degenerative mitral leaflets, which are higher and are in the left atrium. Imaging planes for obtaining this optimal site include short axis with an angle of 30° at the base for anterior–posterior orientation, the bicaval at 90–120° for superior and inferior orientation, and a four-chamber at 0° to assist with height the annulus, see Figure 4A.42 The steerable catheter is introduced through the guide catheter, as seen on the 3D echocardiography in Figure 4B, and can be under continuous 2D echocardiography with biplane imaging as needed. The echocardiographer provides feedback on the proximity of the tip of this catheter and the wall of the left atrium. The MitraClip is directed to the left atrial appendage and then flexed downwards to the MV while using 3D imaging. A surgical view of the MV from a left atrial orientation allows positioning of the MitraClip perpendicular to the coaptation line and directly over the origin of MR, see Figure 4D.42 Occasionally, to confirm the position of the clip, a surgical view of the MV with decreased 3D enables the opened clip orientation to be viewed. The device is advanced into the left ventricle using biplane imaging, preferably using a bicommissural view and long-axis view on the opposite plane, see Figure 4C. The clip is positioned in the long-axis view to grab the anterior and posterior leaflets using 2D echocardiography. Successful placement of the clip is seen if the severity of MR decreases to <2+.42 Evaluation of MR should include regurgitant volume by continuity equation, vena contracta when possible, and pulmonary vein evaluation. The flow convergence method is challenging, since it may overestimate MR when assessing multiple jets and underestimate MR in eccentric jets.42 Equally important is the assessment of MV stenosis, particularly with multiple MitraClips prior to device release. A complete post-device evaluation should determine the presence of pericardial effusion, ventricular or leaflet perforation, and residual iatrogenic ASDs.42 Patients with shunts post procedure do worse clinically. The shunt assessment should be done with 3D TEE, since it has proven to be more accurate in predicting size compared to 2D TEE, which underestimates diameter and area.44,45

Figure 4: Transesophageal Echocardiography of MitraClip Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair

Open in new tab
Open ppt

The EVEREST cohort had strict and specific echocardiographic variables that did not reflect the real-life situations of patients. A 12-month followup study compared patients who met strict EVEREST criteria to patients representing a real-life cohort.46 Acute and 30-day outcomes were similar. At 1 year, reduction in MR and improvement in left ventricular dimensions were also comparable. This study argues that the MitraClip should be expanded to those patients with less ideal echocardiographic features.46 More recently, a long-term outcomes study compared the patients that fulfilled the strict inclusion criteria to those who did not. Regardless of EVEREST criteria, the authors found a 95 % primary success rate and a significant reduction in MR severity. However, those who did not meet the strict criteria were more likely to require an additional intervention due to recurrent MR.47

Atrial Septal Defect/Patent Foramen Ovale Closure

Catheter intervention with the assistance of echocardiography has created a suitable alternative for the closure of uncomplicated secundum ASD and PFO. The indications for ASD closure include right ventricular and atrial enlargement, evidence of paradoxical embolism, or documented orthodeoxia-platypnea, and may be considered when a significant shunt is present.48 Currently, there are no approved indications for PFO closure other than documented orthodeoxia-platypnea, although catheter intervention can be used off-label for paradoxical embolization.49

Figure 5: Three-dimensional Transesophageal Echocardiography During Atrial Septal Defect Closure

Open in new tab
Open ppt

TTE with agitated saline is usually the initial step in the detection of atrial shunts and in assessing the hemodynamic consequences.50 A TEE should be considered when the TTE is negative but high clinical suspicion remains, or to confirm an ASD or PFO, evaluate for pulmonary shunt, and define anatomy.50 There are defined imaging planes on TEE that are used to assess the size and rims of an ASD. TEE should begin with an entire sweep of the atrial septum at 0° (four-chamber) followed by 90° (bicaval view) with and without color Doppler. At 0°, an investigation of the interatrial septum (IAS) starts from superior vena cava down to the inferior vena cava, and at 90° an entire sweep from right-to-left should be viewed. At 30° the anterior portion of the IAS adjacent to the aorta and the posterior rim is assessed.50,51

There are a number of anatomical features that are required to confirm catheter closure suitability and device choice. Defects >38 mm and those with a deficient rim <5 mm may require surgery, though deficient rims anterior adjacent to the aorta are less problematic.52 Transcatheter repair of ASDs that are in proximity to the mitral and tricuspid valve and deficient with rims adjacent to the superior vena cava and inferior vena cava are typically avoided. There are several types of device available, and the presence of certain anatomical features will sway the use of one device over another. For example, the GORE® HELEX® device (W. L. Gore & Associates) can be considered in place of the widely used AMPLATZER™ Septal Occluder (St. Jude Medical) when there is a deficient rim, since its softer disks may lead to less erosion.52 Real-time 3D TEE helps to define the shape, size and rim of the ASD, since it provides an enface view. This image can then be rotated to view the septum from the right and left atrium, enabling us to appreciate the dynamic geometry in diastole and systole. The pre-assessment for a PFO should include size of the left and right atrial opening, total length of the PFO tunnel, the presence of aneurysm, and the location and extent of the Eustachian ridge and valve. The pre-assessment for ASD closure includes thickness of the secondary septum, rim size, and defect size.9,50,51

Once appropriate patients and devices are selected, 3D TEE can assist in the septal puncture from the oblique and lateral views, and in the case of ASDs it has been shown to provide better definition of septal anatomy and visualization of catheters. From the oblique and lateral views, the guide catheter can be seen clearly crossing the IAS. While in this view, rotating from right to left creates a view of the catheter in the left atrium, allowing for disk expansion. A lateral perspective allows visualization of the right disk expansion, resulting in the IAS being sandwiched by two expanded disks, see Figure 5.53 In addition to 3D visualization, biplane imaging aids in the placement of the device, ensuring alignment with the IAS. A successful closure is defined by complete closure with residual shunt <1–2 mm.52 With regard to long-term follow up, TTE is sufficient to assess for migration, residuals shunts, right atrial and right ventricular size, and pulmonary artery pressure, if available.9

Conclusion

The trend towards developing less invasive procedures for structural heart disease has led to an increased need for echocardiography support in the diagnosis of disease, sizing of devices, procedural guidance, and monitoring to determine the success or failure of procedures. There is a high demand for improved spatial and temporal resolution via 2D and 3D imaging to meet these expectations. Evolving technology is expanding the role and improving the accuracy of 2D and 3D TEE and TTE in the rapidly-growing fields of structural cardiology and interventional echocardiography.

References
  1. Fanari Z, Weintraub WS. Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter versus surgical management of structural heart disease. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2016;17:44–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Faxon D, Williams DO. The changing face of interventional cardiology. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2012;5:325–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Yadav K, Halim SA, Vavalle J. Training in structural heart interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:2296–8; discussion 2298.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. January CT, Wann S, Alpert JS, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:e1–76.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Albertsen IE, Rasmussen LH, Overvad TF, et al. Risk of stroke or systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation patients treated with warfarin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke 2013;44:1329–36.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Marzec LN, Want J, Shah ND, et al. Influence of direct oral anticoagulants on rates of oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:2475–84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Chatterjee S, Herrmann HC, Wilensky RL, et al. Safety and procedural success of left atrial appendage exclusion with the Lariat device: a systematic review of published reports and analytic review of the FDA MAUDE database. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:1104–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Masoudi FA, Calkins H, Kavinsky CJ, et al. American College of Cardiology; Heart Rhythm Society; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. 2015 ACC/HRS/SCAI left atrial appendage occlusion device societal overview. Heart Rhythm 2015;12:e122–36.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Patrianakos AP, Zacharaki AA, Skalidis EI, et al. The growing role of echocardiography in interventional cardiology: The present and the future. Hellenic J Cardiol 2017;58:17–31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Saw J, Lempereur M. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: procedural techniques and outcomes. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:1205–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Sommer M, Roehrich A, Boener F, et al. Value of 3D TEE for LAA morphology. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8:1107–10.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Yosefy C, Azhibekov Y, Brodkin B, et al. Rotational method simplifies 3-dimensional measurement of left atrial appendage dimensions during transesophageal echocardiography. Cardiovasc Ultrasound 2016;14:36.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Yosefy C, Laish-Farkash A, Azhibekov Y, et al. A new method for direct three-dimensional measurement of left atrial appendage dimensions during transesophageal echocardiography. Echocardiography 2016;33:69–76.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Lindman BR, Clavel MA, Mathieu P, et al. Calcific aortic stenosis. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016;2:16006.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:252–89.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Stoddard MF, Arce J, Liddell NE, et al. Two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiographic determination of aortic valve area in adults with aortic stenosis. Am Heart J 1991;122:1415–22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Kasel AM, Cassese S, Belizifer S, et al. Standardized imaging for aortic annular sizing: implications for transcatheter valve selection. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;6:249–62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Husser O, Holzamer A, Resch M, et al. Prosthesis sizing for transcatheter aortic valve implantation – comparison of three dimensional transesophageal echocardiography with multislice computed tomography. Int J Cardiol 2013;168:3431–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Ng AC, Delgado V, van der Kley F, et al. Comparison of aortic root dimensions and geometries before and after transcatheter aortic valve implantation by 2- and 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography and multislice computed tomography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3:94–102.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Tsang W, Bateman MG, Weinert L, et al. Accuracy of aortic annular measurements obtained from three-dimensional echocardiography, CT and MRI: human in vitro and in vivo studies. Heart 2012;98:1146–52.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Tsuneyoshi H, Komiya T, Shimamoto T. Accuracy of aortic annulus diameter measurement: comparison of multi-detector CT, two- and three-dimensional echocardiography. J Card Surg 2016;31:18–22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Wiley BM, Kovacic JC, Basnet S, et al. Intraprocedural TAVR annulus sizing using 3D TEE and the “turnaround rule”. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;9:213–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Buzzatti N, Maisano F, Latib A, et al. Computed tomographybased evaluation of aortic annulus, prosthesis size and impact on early residual aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2013;43:43–50; discussion 50–1.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Faletti R, Gatti M, Salizzoni S, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance as a reliable alternative to cardiovascular computed tomography and transesophageal echocardiography for aortic annulus valve sizing. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;32:1255–63.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Rendon A, Hamid T, Kanaganayagam G, et al. Annular sizing using real-time three-dimensional intracardiac echocardiography-guided trans-catheter aortic valve replacement. Open Heart 2016;3:e000316. PMCid:PMC4854149
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Stortecky S, Heg D, Gloekler S, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of aortic annulus sizing using a dedicated threedimensional computed tomography reconstruction tool in patients evaluated for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. EuroIntervention 2014;10:339–46.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Bleakley C, Eskandari M, Monaghan M. 3D transoesophageal echocardiography in the TAVI sizing arena: should we do it and how do we do it? Echo Res Pract 2017;4:R21–R32.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Attizzani GF, Ohno Y, Latib A, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation under angiographic guidance with and without adjunctive transesophageal echocardiography. Am J Cardiol 2015;116:604–11.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Dall’Ara G, Eltchaninoff H, Moat N, et al. Transcatheter Valve Treatment Sential Registry (TCT) Investigators of the EuroObservational Research Programme (EORP) of the European Society of Cardiology. Local and general anaesthesia do not influence outcome of transfemoral aortic valve implantation. Int J Cardiol 2014;177:448–54.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Jensen HA, Condado JF, Deireddy C, et al. Minimalist transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The new standard for surgeons and cardiologists using transfemoral access? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;150:833–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Oguri A, Yamamoto M, Mouillet G, et al. FRANCE 2 Registry Investigators. Clinical outcomes and safety of transfemoral aortic valve implantation under general versus local anesthesia: subanalysis of the French Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards 2 registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:602–10.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Villablanca A, Mohananey D, Nikolic K, et al. Comparison of local versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta–analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2017.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Kronzon I, Jelnin V, Ruiz CE, et al. Optimal imaging for guiding TAVR: transesophageal or transthoracic echocardiography, or just fluoroscopy? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8:361–70.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Martín M1, Luyando LH, de la Hera JM, et al. The importance of echocardiography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: TAVI: a multimodality approach. Echocardiography 2014;31:911.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Otto CM, Kumbhani JD, Alexander KP, et al. 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the Management of Adults With Aortic Stenosis: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:1313–46.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Enriquez–Sarano M, Akins CW, Vahanian A. Mitral regurgitation. Lancet 2009;373:1382–94.
    Crossref
  37. Feldman T, Kar S, Elmariah S, et al. EVEREST II Investigators. Randomized comparison of percutaneous repair and surgery for mitral regurgitation: 5-year results of EVEREST II. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:2844–54.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Silvestry FE, Rodriguez LL, Herrmann HC, et al. Echocardiographic guidance and assessment of percutaneous repair for mitral regurgitation with the Evalve MitraClip: lessons learned from EVEREST I. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2007;20:1131–40.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Feldman T, Kar S, Rinaldi M, et al. EVEREST Investigators. Percutaneous mitral repair with the MitraClip system: safety and midterm durability in the initial EVEREST (Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge REpair Study) cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:686–94.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Hahn RT. Transcathether valve replacement and valve repair: review of procedures and intraprocedural echocardiographic imaging. Circ Res 2016;119:341–56.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Altiok E, Becker M, Hamada S, et al. Optimized guidance of percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve using real-time 3-D transesophageal echocardiography. Clin Res Cardiol 2011;100:675–81.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Wunderlich NC, Siegel RJ. Peri-interventional echo assessment for the MitraClip procedure. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;14:935–49.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Biner S, Perk G, Kar S, et al. Utility of combined two-dimensional and three-dimensional transesophageal imaging for catheterbased mitral valve clip repair of mitral regurgitation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2011;24:611–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Saitoh T, Izumo M, Furugen A, et al. Echocardiographic evaluation of iatrogenic atrial septal defect after catheter-based mitral valve clip insertion. Am J Cardiol 2012;109:1787–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Schueler R, Öztürk C, Wedekind JA, et al. Persistence of iatrogenic atrial septal defect after interventional mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system: a note of caution. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015;8:450–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Attizzani GF, Ohno Y, Capodanno D, et al. Extended use of percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair beyond EVEREST (Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge Repair) criteria: 30-day and 12-month clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the GRASP (Getting Reduction of Mitral Insufficiency by Percutaneous Clip Implantation) registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015;8(1 Pt A):74–82.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Lesevic H, Karl M, Braun D, et al. Long-term outcomes after MitraClip implantation according to the presence or absence of EVEREST inclusion criteria. Am J Cardiol 2017;119:1255–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Warnes CA, Williams RG, Bashore TM, et al. ACC/AHA 2008 guidelines for the management of adults with congenital heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Congenital Heart Disease). Developed in Collaboration With the American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:e143–263.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Sommer RJ, Hijazi ZM, Rhodes Jr JF. Pathophysiology of congenital heart disease in the adult: part I: Shunt lesions. Circulation 2008;117:1090–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Rana BS, Thomas MR, Calvert PA, et al. Echocardiographic evaluation of patent foramen ovale prior to device closure. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3:749–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Rana BS, Shapiro LM, CmCarthy KP, Ho SY. Three-dimensional imaging of the atrial septum and patent foramen ovale anatomy: defining the morphological phenotypes of patent foramen ovale. Eur J Echocardiogr 2010;11:i19–25.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Bissessor N. Current perspectives in percutaneous atrial septal defect closure devices. Med Devices (Auckl) 2015;8:297–303.
    Crossref
  53. Faletra FF, Pedrazzini G, Pasotti E, et al. 3D TEE during catheterbased interventions. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7:292–308.
    Crossref | PubMed