Computed tomography vs. cinefluoroscopy for the assessment of mechanical prosthetic valve leaflet motion

Evaluation of mechanical prosthetic valve function is based on echocardiography, but adequate assessment of leaflet motion is limited by acoustic shadowing. Cinefluoroscopy is a standard method to assess leaflet motion, while computed tomography (CT) has been suggested as an alternative. We sought to compare the feasibility of leaflet motion assessment by cinefluoroscopy vs. CT. In 35 prospectively enrolled patients, leaflet motion was assessed in 43 bileaflet mechanical prostheses (29 mitral and 14 aortic) by cinefluoroscopy and non-contrast CT. Assessment was considered feasible when the ‘in profile’ projection (with the radiographic beam parallel to both the valve ring plane and the tilting axis of discs) could be achieved. Overall feasibility of fluoroscopic assessment was 74% (mitral, 66% vs. aortic, 93%; p = 0.071), while feasibility of CT assessment was 100% (p = 0.003). Among prostheses with unfeasible fluoroscopic assessment, CT suggested an extreme C-arm angulation to achieve the “in profile” projection (RAO: 76.0 ± 5.8°, LAO: 122.7 ± 32.5°, CRA: 51.4 ± 16.0°, CAU: 57.0 ± 18.2°). Among prostheses with feasible assessment by both techniques, fluoroscopy and CT yielded similar opening and closing angles (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.959–0.998) with lower irradiation with CT as compared with fluoroscopy (26.2[21.1–29.3] vs. 289[179–358] mGy, p < 0.001). While CT scan took 8.7 ± 0.5 s, fluoroscopy required 2.64 ± 1.56 min to achieve and record the “in profile” projection. Non-contrast CT provides a higher feasibility and a quicker evaluation of mechanical prosthetic valve leaflet motion with less irradiation than fluoroscopy, especially in mitral valve position.