Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bildgebung nach Klappenersatz

Imaging following valve replacement

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Radiologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 16 November 2013

Zusammenfassung

Patienten bedürfen nach Herzklappenersatz einer lebenslangen kardiologischen Nachsorge. Zwar wird durch einen operativen Eingriff die Primärpathologie behandelt, das Risiko postoperativ auftretender Komplikationen sowie evtl. auftretender Klappenfunktionsstörungen macht regelmäßige Kontrollen jedoch unabdingbar. Vor allem die Bildgebung spielt eine wichtige Rolle. So werden unmittelbar postoperativ Referenzwerte bzgl. Klappen- und Herzfunktion für spätere Verlaufskontrollen akquiriert. Die transthorakale und -ösophageale Echokardiographie sind aufgrund ihrer Verfügbarkeit und auch kostentechnisch Mittel der Wahl. Für die Identifikation von Komplikationen sind sie oftmals jedoch nicht ausreichend. Die Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) und auch die Computertomographie (CT) spielen dagegen als ergänzende Untersuchungsmodalitäten in Bezug auf Erkennung und Überwachung von Komplikationen nach Klappenersatz eine zunehmend wichtige Rolle.

Der folgende Artikel gibt einen Überblick über die aktuellen nichtinvasiven Untersuchungsmodalitäten sowie ihren Einsatz bei der Abklärung postoperativer Komplikationen.

Abstract

Patients who undergo heart valve replacement require lifelong cardiac follow-up care. Although the primary pathology of the patient is treated by valve replacement, the risk of postoperative complications and structural failure of the implanted device requires regular check-ups where imaging plays an important role. Immediately after surgery reference values regarding prosthetic and cardiac function for further check-ups are obtained. Transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography are the imaging modalities of choice for standard examination and follow-up due to their availability and low costs. However, when it comes to identification of complications they are often insufficient. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) play an increasingly important role as complementary modalities for the detection and monitoring of complications after valve replacement.

The following article gives an overview of the current non-invasive examination methods and the use in the investigation of postoperative complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6

Literatur

  1. Badano LP, Boccalini F, Muraru D et al (2012) Current clinical applications of transthoracic three-dimensional echocardiography. J Cardiovasc Ultrasound 20:1–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Binder RK, Webb JG (2012) TAVI: from home-made prosthesis to global interventional phenomenon. Heart 98(Suppl 4):iv30–iv36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bull S, White SK, Piechnik SK et al (2013) Human non-contrast T1 values and correlation with histology in diffuse fibrosis. Heart 99:932–937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Burri MV, Gupta D, Kerber RE et al (2012) Review of novel clinical applications of advanced, real-time, 3-dimensional echocardiography. Transl Res 159:149–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cannegieter SC, Rosendaal FR, Briet E (1994) Thromboembolic and bleeding complications in patients with mechanical heart valve prostheses. Circulation 89:635–641

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dumesnil JG, Honos GN, Lemieux M et al (1990) Validation and applications of mitral prosthetic valvular areas calculated by Doppler echocardiography. Am J Cardiol 65:1443–1448

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fernandes V, Olmos L, Nagueh SF et al (2002) Peak early diastolic velocity rather than pressure half-time is the best index of mechanical prosthetic mitral valve function. Am J Cardiol 89:704–710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gummert JF, Funkat AK, Beckmann A et al (2011) Cardiac surgery in Germany during 2010: a report on behalf of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 59:259–267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Habets J, Budde RP, Symersky P et al (2011) Diagnostic evaluation of left-sided prosthetic heart valve dysfunction. Nature Rev Cardiol 8:466–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hufnagel CA, Harvey WP, Rabil PJ et al (1954) Surgical correction of aortic insufficiency. Surgery 35:673–683

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jindani A, Neville EM, Venn G et al (1991) Paraprosthetic leak: a complication of cardiac valve replacement. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 32:503–508

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kouchoukos NT, Wareing TH, Murphy SF et al (1991) Sixteen-year experience with aortic root replacement. Results of 172 operations. Ann Surg 214:308–318 (discussion 318–320)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kronzon I, Sugeng L, Perk G et al (2009) Real-time 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography in the evaluation of post-operative mitral annuloplasty ring and prosthetic valve dehiscence. J Am Coll Cardiol 53:1543–1547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lang RM, Mor-Avi V, Sugeng L et al (2006) Three-dimensional echocardiography: the benefits of the additional dimension. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:2053–2069

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lewall DB, Ofole S, Mccorkell SJ (1988) Prosthetic heart valve malfunction: plain film findings. Can Assoc Radiol J 39:182–185

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mahmood F, Warraich HJ, Shahul S et al (2012) En face view of the mitral valve: definition and acquisition. Anesth Analg 115:779–784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. O’Rourke DJ, Palac RT, Malenka DJ et al (2001) Outcome of mild periprosthetic regurgitation detected by intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 38:163–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pham N, Zaitoun H, Mohammed TL et al (2012) Complications of aortic valve surgery: manifestations at CT and MR imaging. Radiographics 32:1873–1892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG (2006) Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart 92:1022–1029

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG (2009) Prosthetic heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management. Circulation 119:1034–1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pibarot P, Honos GN, Durand LG et al (1995) Substitution of left ventricular outflow tract diameter with prosthesis size is inadequate for calculation of the aortic prosthetic valve area by the continuity equation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 8:511–517

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Plicht B, Buck T (2013) Current value of 3D echocardiography in international guidelines. Herz 38:33–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Puntmann VO, Voigt T, Chen Z et al (2013) Native t1 mapping in differentiation of normal myocardium from diffuse disease in hypertrophic and dilated cardiomyopathy. JACC Cardiovascular imaging 6:475–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sedgwick JF, Burstow DJ (2012) Update on echocardiography in the management of infective endocarditis. Curr Infect Dis Rep 14:373–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Singh P, Manda J, Hsiung MC et al (2009) Live/real time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiographic evaluation of mitral and aortic valve prosthetic paravalvular regurgitation. Echocardiography 26:980–987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Symersky P, Budde RP, De Mol BA et al (2009) Comparison of multidetector-row computed tomography to echocardiography and fluoroscopy for evaluation of patients with mechanical prosthetic valve obstruction. Am J Cardiol 104:1128–1134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Teshima H, Hayashida N, Fukunaga S et al (2004) Usefulness of a multidetector-row computed tomography scanner for detecting pannus formation. Ann Thorac Surg 77:523–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Urso S, Sadaba R, Aldamiz-Echevarria G (2009) Is patient-prosthesis mismatch an independent risk factor for early and mid-term overall mortality in adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 9:510–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F et al (2012) Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J 33:2451–2496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F et al (2012) Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012): the Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 42:S1–S44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vongpatanasin W, Hillis LD, Lange RA (1996) Prosthetic heart valves. N Engl J Med 335:407–416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Weidemann F, Herrmann S, Stork S et al (2009) Impact of myocardial fibrosis in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Circulation 120:577–584

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. E. Nagel, D. Dabir, E.A. Ucar geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiovascular Imaging, The Ranyne Institute, St. Thomas Hospital, King’s College London , SE1 7EH, London, UK

    D. Dabir, E.A. Ucar &  E. Nagel

  2. Radiologische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland

    D. Dabir

Authors
  1. D. Dabir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E.A. Ucar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Nagel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Nagel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dabir, D., Ucar, E. & Nagel, E. Bildgebung nach Klappenersatz. Radiologe 53, 896–907 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-012-2470-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-012-2470-5

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation