Advertisement

Clinical Research in Cardiology

, Volume 107, Supplement 2, pp 49–54 | Cite as

Current and future aspects of multimodal and fusion imaging in structural and coronary heart disease

  • Verena Veulemans
  • Katharina Hellhammer
  • Amin Polzin
  • Florian Bönner
  • Tobias Zeus
  • Malte KelmEmail author
Review
  • 154 Downloads

Abstract

The procedural success of cardiovascular and structural interventions depends on adequate pre- and intraprocedural imaging. Multimodal imaging utilizing several techniques provides added value in terms of procedural planning and efficacy by combining the individual strength of each imaging modalities. Recently, fusion imaging as combined “hybrid” procedure of several imaging modalities has gained some attention. The major advantage consists in the optimized multi-dimensional view with an excellent spatial resolution and anatomic orientation. The so often called “anatomical intelligence” already gives prospects towards heart model-derived heart valve construction and individual anatomic conformation. However, hybrid fusion imaging has the potential to increase safety, accuracy, and procedural effectiveness in interventional cardiology.

This review gives an overview of the benefits and shortcomings of multimodal and fusion imaging in the context of pre- and intraprocedural structural and cardiovascular interventions. It highlights some aspects and thoughts towards cardiovascular imaging of the future.

Keywords

Fusion imaging Hybrid imaging Multimodal imaging 

Abbreviations

CAD

Coronary artery disease

CMR

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging

3D

3-dimensional

IHD

Ischemic heart disease

LAA

Left atrial appendage

LVOT

Left ventricular outflow tract

MSCT

Multislice computer tomography

PCI

Percutaneous coronary intervention

SE

Stress echocardiography

SHD

Structural heart disease(s)

TAVI

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation

TOE

Transesophageal echocardiography

TTE

Transthoracal echocardiography

VHD

Valvular heart disease

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The Division of Cardiology has a master research agreement with Philips Healthcare (Netherlands).

References

  1. 1.
    Working Group of the SEC on the 2013 ESC Guidelines on the Management of Stable Coronary Artery Disease; Reviewers for the 2013 ESC Guidelines on the Management of Stable Coronary Artery Disease; SEC Guidelines Committee (2014) Comments on the 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease. Rev Esp Cardiol 67(2):80–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2013.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, De Bonis M, Hamm C, Holm PJ, Iung B, Lancellotti P, Lansac E, Muñoz DR, Rosenhek R, Sjögren J, Mas PT, Vahanian A, Walther T, Wendler O, Windecker S, Zamorano JL (2018) 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) 71(2):110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2017.12.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lancellotti P, Dulgheru R, Go YY, Sugimoto T, Marchetta S, Oury C, Garbi M (2017) Stress echocardiography in patients with native valvular heart disease. Heart.  https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311682 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pison L, Potpara TS, Chen J, Larsen TB, Bongiorni MG, Blomström-Lundqvist C; Scientific Initiative Committee, European Heart Rhythm Association (2015) Left atrial appendage closure-indications, techniques, and outcomes: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association Survey. Europace 17(4):642–646.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euv069 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff F, Schulz-Menger J (2016) Role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 18:6.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-016-0225-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Windecker Authors/TaskFmembers, Kolh S, Alfonso P, Collet F, Cremer JP, Falk J, Filippatos V, Hamm G, Head C, Jüni SJ, Kappetein P, Kastrati AP, Knuuti A, Landmesser J, Laufer U, Neumann G, Richter FJ, Schauerte DJ, Sousa Uva P, Stefanini M, Taggart GG, Torracca DP, Valgimigli L, Wijns M, Witkowski W A (2014) 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the task force on myocardial revascularization of the european society of cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for cardio-thoracic surgery (EACTS) developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 35(37):2541–619.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu278 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fernández-Armenta J, Berruezo A, Andreu D, Camara O, Silva E, Serra L, Barbarito V, Carotenutto L, Evertz R, Ortiz-Pérez JT, De Caralt TM, Perea RJ, Sitges M, Mont L, Frangi A, Brugada J (2013) Three-dimensional architecture of scar and conducting channels based on high resolution ce-CMR: insights for ventricular tachycardia ablation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 6(3):528–37.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.113.000264 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Markl M, Mikati I, Carr J, McCarthy P, Malaisrie SC. Three-dimensional blood flow alterations after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (2012) Circulation 125(15):e573–5.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.070086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 6:366–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2012.11.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kamperidis V, van Rosendael PJ, Katsanos S, van der Kley F, Regeer M, Al Amri I, Sianos G, Marsan NA, Delgado V, Bax JJ (2015) Low gradient severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction: reclassificationof severity by fusion of doppler and computed tomographic data. Eur Heart J 36(31):2087–2096.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv188 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krishnaswamy A, Tuzcu EM, Kapadia SR (2011) Three-dimensional computed tomography in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 77:860–865.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.22740 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Veulemans V, Mollus S, Saalbach A, Pietsch M, Hellhammer K, Zeus T, Westenfeld R, Weese J, Kelm M, Balzer J (2016) Optimal C-arm angulation during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: accuracy of a rotational C-arm computed tomography based three dimensional heart model. World J Cardiol 8(10):606–614.  https://doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v8.i10.606 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Afzal S, Veulemans V, Balzer J, Rassaf T, Hellhammer K, Polzin A, Kelm M, Zeus T (2017) Safety and efficacy of transseptal puncture guided by real-time fusion of echocardiography and fluoroscopy. Neth Heart J 25(2):131–136.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-016-0937-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Balzer J, Zeus T, Hellhammer K, Veulemans V, Eschenhagen S, Kehmeier E, Meyer C, Rassaf T, Kelm M (2015) Initial clinical experience using the EchoNavigator(®)-system during structural heart disease interventions. World J Cardiol 7(9):562–70.  https://doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v7.i9.562 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Biaggi P, Fernandez-Golfín C, Hahn R, Corti R (2015) Hybrid imaging during transcatheter structural heart interventions. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep 8(9):33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12410-015-9349-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vaitkus PT, Wang DD, Greenbaum A, Guerrero M, O’Neill W (2014) Assessment of a novel software tool in the selection of aortic valve prosthesis size for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Invasive Cardiol 26:328–332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    von Spiczak J, Manka R, Gotschy A, Oebel S, Kozerke S, Hamada S, Alkadhi H (2017) Fusion of CT coronary angiography and whole-heart dynamic 3D cardiac MR perfusion: building a framework for comprehensive cardiac imaging. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-017-1260-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nensa F, Tezgah E, Poeppel TD, Jensen CJ, Schelhorn J, Köhler J, Heusch P, Bruder O, Schlosser T, Nassenstein K (2015) Integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging in the assessment of cardiac masses: a pilot study. J Nucl Med 56(2):255–60.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.147744 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dannenberg L, Polzin A, Bullens R, Kelm M, Zeus T (2016) On the road: First-in-man bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention with the use of a dynamic coronary road map and StentBoost Live imaging system. Int J Cardiol 215:7–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.03.133 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lau I, Sun Z (2018) Three-dimensional printing in congenital heart disease: a systematic review. J Med Radiat Sci  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.268 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Douglas PS, Cerqueira MD, Berman DS, Chinnaiyan K, Cohen MS, Lundbye JB, Patel RA, Sengupta PP, Soman P, Weissman NJ, Wong TC; ACC Cardiovascular Imaging Council (2016) The Future of cardiac imaging: report of a think tank convened by the American college of cardiology. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 9(10):1211–1223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.02.027 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Verena Veulemans
    • 1
  • Katharina Hellhammer
    • 1
  • Amin Polzin
    • 1
  • Florian Bönner
    • 1
  • Tobias Zeus
    • 1
  • Malte Kelm
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular MedicineHeinrich Heine University, Medical FacultyDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.CARID (Cardiovascular Research Institute Düsseldorf)DüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations