Noninvasive imaging of prosthetic cardiac devices

References

• Wu Y, Grunkemeier GL, Starr A. The value of aortic valve replacement in elderly patients: an economic analysis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.133(3), 603–607 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu Y, Jin R, Gao G et al. Cost–effectiveness of aortic valve replacement in the elderly: an introductory study. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.133(3), 608–613 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation114(5), e84–e231 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Rosenhek R, Binder T, Maurer G et al. Normal values for Doppler echocardiographic assessment of heart valve prostheses. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr.16(11), 1116–1127 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bech-Hanssen O, Wallentin I, Larsson S et al. Reference Doppler echocardiographic values for St. Jude Medical, Omnicarbon, and Biocor prosthetic valves in the aortic position. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr.11(5), 466–477 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Feigenbaum H, Armstrong W, Ryan T. Feigenbaum’s Echocardiography (6th Edition). Williams & Wilkins, Lippincott, PA, USA (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner H, Hung J, Bermejo J et al. Echocardiographic assessment of valve stenosis: EAE/ASE recommendations for clinical practice. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr.22(1), 1–23 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel WG, Mugge A, Grote J et al. Comparison of transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography for detection of abnormalities of prosthetic and bio-prosthetic valves in the mitral and aortic positions. Am. J. Cardiol.71(2), 210–215 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Feuchtner GM, Stolzmann P, Dichtl W et al. Multislice computed tomography in infective endocarditis: comparison with transesophageal echocardiography and intraoperative findings. J. Am. Coll. Cardio.53(5), 436–444 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber TC, Kantor B, McCollough CH. Radiation dose and safety in cardiac computed tomography. Cardiol. Clin.27(4), 665–677 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kim RJ, Weinsaft JW, Callister TQ et al. Evaluation of prosthetic valve endocarditis by 64-row multi-detector computed tomography. Int. J. Cardiol.120(2), e27–e29 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Prasad SK, Pennell DJ. Safety of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with cardiovascular implants and devices. Heart90(11), 1241–1244 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook SC, Shull J, Pickworth-Pierce K et al. An unusual cause of susceptibility artifact in magnetic resonance imaging. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging24(5), 1148–1150 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hendel RC, Patel MR, Kramer CM et al. ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/ NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiol. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.48(7), 1475–1497 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawamoto S, Bluemke DA, Traill TA et al. Thoracoabdominal aorta in Marfan syndrome: MR imaging findings of progression of vasculopathy after surgical repair. Radiology203(3), 727–732 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Grotenhuis HB, de Roos A, Ottenkamp J. et al. MR imaging of right ventricular function after the Ross procedure for aortic valve replacement: initial experience. Radiology246(2), 394–400 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hammermeister KE, Sethi GK, Henderson WG et al. Comparison of outcomes in men 11 years after heart-valve replacement with a mechanical valve or bioprosthesis. Veterans affairs cooperative study on valvular heart disease. N. Engl. J. Med.328(18), 1289–1296 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien MF, Stafford EG, Gardner MA et al. Allograft aortic valve replacement: Long-term follow-up. Ann. Thorac Surg.60(Suppl. 2), S65–S70 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Vongpatanasin W, Hillis LD, Lange RA. Prosthetic heart valves. N. Engl. J. Med.335(6), 407–416 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aslam AK, Aslam AF, Vasavada BC et al. Prosthetic heart valves: types and echocardiographic evaluation. Int. J. Cardiol.122(2), 99–110 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morehead AJ, Firstenberg MS, Shiota T et al. Intraoperative echocardiographic detection of regurgitant jets after valve replacement. Ann. Thorac. Surg.69(1), 135–139 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ionescu A, Fraser AG, Butchart EG. Prevalence and clinical significance of incidental paraprosthetic valvar regurgitation: a prospective study using transoesophageal echocardiography. Heart89(11), 1316–1321 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rallidis LS, Moyssakis IE, Ikonomidis I et al. Natural history of early aortic paraprosthetic regurgitation: a five-year follow-up. Am. Heart J.138(2 Pt 1), 351–357 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sachdev M, Peterson GE, Jollis JG. Imaging techniques for diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Cardiol. Clin.21(2), 185–195 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morguet AJ, Werner GS, Andreas S et al. Diagnostic value of transesophageal compared with transthoracic echocardiography in suspected prosthetic valve endocarditis. Herz20(6), 390–398 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vered Z, Mossinson D, Peleg E et al. Echocardiographic assessment of prosthetic valve endocarditis. Eur. Heart J.16(Suppl. B), 63–67 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roe MT, Abramson MA, Li J et al. Clinical information determines the impact of transesophageal echocardiography on the diagnosis of infective endocarditis by the duke criteria. Am. Heart J.139(6), 945–951 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karchmer AW, Longworth DL. Infections of intracardiac devices. Cardiol. Clin.21(2), 253–271 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alpert JS. The thrombosed prosthetic valve: current recommendations based on evidence from the literature. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.41(4), 659–660 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Montorsi P, De Bernardi F, Muratori M et al. Role of cine-fluoroscopy, transthoracic, and transesophageal echocardiography in patients with suspected prosthetic heart valve thrombosis. Am. J. Cardiol.85(1), 58–64 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong AT, Roudaut R, Ozkan M et al. Transesophageal echocardiography improves risk assessment of thrombolysis of prosthetic valve thrombosis: results of the international PRO-TEE registry. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.43(1), 77–84 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbetseas J, Nagueh SF, Pitsavos C et al. Differentiating thrombus from pannus formation in obstructed mechanical prosthetic valves: an evaluation of clinical, transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiographic parameters. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.32(5), 1410–1417 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin SS, Tiong IY, Asher CR et al. Prediction of thrombus-related mechanical prosthetic valve dysfunction using transesophageal echocardiography. Am. J. Cardiol.86(10), 1097–1101 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Girard SE, Miller FA Jr, Orszulak TA et al. Reoperation for prosthetic aortic valve obstruction in the era of echocardiography: trends in diagnostic testing and comparison with surgical findings. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.37(2), 579–584 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Teshima H, Hayashida N, Enomoto N et al. Detection of pannus by multidetector-row computed tomography. Ann. Thorac. Surg.75(5), 1631–1633 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Teshima H, Hayashida N, Fukunaga S et al. Usefulness of a multidetector-row computed tomography scanner for detecting pannus formation. Ann. Thorac. Surg.77(2), 523–526 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raman SV, Cook SC. Cardiovascular computed tomography and MRI in clinical practice: aortopathy. J. Cardiovasc. Med.8(7), 535–540 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Morocutti G, Gelsomino S, Spedicato L et al. Transesophageal echocardiography follow-up of patients undergoing replacement of the ascending aorta and aortic valve with a Cabrol procedure for chronic aneurysm and dissection. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr.16(4), 360–366 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Francois CJ, Tuite D, Deshpande V et al. Unenhanced MR angiography of the thoracic aorta: initial clinical evaluation. Am. J. Roentgenol.190(4), 902–908 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koktzoglou I, Chung YC, Carroll TJ et al. Three-dimensional black-blood MR imaging of carotid arteries with segmented steady-state free precession: initial experience. Radiology243(1), 220–228 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Nienaber CA, Fattori R. Aortic diseases – do we need MR techniques? Herz25(4), 331–341 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fattori R, Descovich B, Bertaccini P et al. Composite graft replacement of the ascending aorta: leakage detection with gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology212(2), 573–577 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sundaram B, Quint LE, Patel S et al. CT appearance of thoracic aortic graft complications. Am. J. Roentgenol.188(5), 1273–1277 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coselli JS, Koksoy C, LeMaire SA. Management of thoracic aortic graft infections. Ann. Thorac Surg.67(6), 1990–1993 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundaram B, Quint LE, Patel HJ et al. CT findings following thoracic aortic surgery. Radiographics27(6), 1583–1594 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mesana TG, Caus T, Gaubert J et al. Late complications after prosthetic replacement of the ascending aorta: what did we learn from routine magnetic resonance imaging follow-up? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.18(3), 313–320 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Iezzi R, Cotroneo AR, Marano R et al. Endovascular treatment of thoracic aortic diseases: follow-up and complications with multi-detector computed tomography angiography. Eur. J. Radiol.65(3), 365–376 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Catena E, Milazzo F, Montorsi E et al. Left ventricular support by axial flow pump: the echocardiographic approach to device malfunction. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr.18(12), 1422 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Horton SC, Khodaverdian R, Powers A et al. Left ventricular assist device malfunction: a systematic approach to diagnosis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.43(9), 1574–1583 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• von Smekal A, Lachat ML, Willmann JK et al. Multislice spiral CT follow-up of a patient with implanted debakey ventricular assist device. Circulation102(15), 1871–1872 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raman SV, Sahu A, Merchant AZ, Louis LB 4th, Firstenberg MS, Sun B. Noninvasive assessment of left ventricular assist devices with cardiovascular computed tomography and impact on management. J. Heart Lung Transplant.29(1), 79–85 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raman SV, Tran T, Simonetti OP, Sun B. Dynamic computed tomography to determine cardiac output in patients with left ventricular assist devices. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.137(5), 1213–1217 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Josephson M, Wellens HJ. Implantable defibrillators and sudden cardiac death. Circulation109(22), 2685–2691 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Hauser RG. The growing mismatch between patient longevity and the service life of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.45(12), 2022–2025 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordbeck P, Weiss I, Ehses P et al. Measuring RF-induced currents inside implants: impact of device configuration on MRI safety of cardiac pacemaker leads. Mag. Reson. Med.61(3), 570–578 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommer T, Naehle CP, Yang A et al. Strategy for safe performance of extrathoracic magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 tesla in the presence of cardiac pacemakers in non-pacemaker-dependent patients: a prospective study with 115 examinations. Circulation114(12), 1285–1292 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin ET, Coman JA, Shellock FG et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and cardiac pacemaker safety at 1.5-Tesla. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.43(7), 1315–1324 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irnich W, Irnich B, Bartsch C, Stertmann WA, Gufler H, Weiler G. Do we need pacemakers resistant to magnetic resonance imaging? Europace7(4), 353–365 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkoff BL, Bello D, Taborsky M et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with a pacemaker system designed for the magnetic resonance environment. Heart Rhythm8(1), 65–73 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Levine GN, Gomes AS, Arai AE et al. American Heart Association Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization; American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention. Safety of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Cardiovascular Devices: an American Heart Association Scientific Statement from the Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology foundation, the North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. Circulation116(24), 2878–2891 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nazarian S, Roguin A, Zviman MM et al. Clinical utility and safety of a protocol for noncardiac and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging of patients with permanent pacemakers and implantable-cardioverter defibrillators at 1.5 Tesla. Circulation114(12), 1277–1284 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naehle CP, Strach K, Thomas D et al. Magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5-T in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. J. Am. Coll. Cardio.54, 549–555 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerut EK, Hanawalt C, Everson CT. Role of the echocardiography laboratory in diagnosis and management of pacemaker and implantable cardiac defibrillator infection. Echocardiography24(9), 1008–1012 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dumont E, Camus C, Victor F et al. Suspected pacemaker or defibrillator trans-venous lead infection. Prospective assessment of a TEE-guided therapeutic strategy. Eur. Heart J.24(19), 1779–1787 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korkeila PJ, Saraste MK, Nyman KM et al. Transesophageal echocardiography in the diagnosis of thrombosis associated with permanent transvenous pacemaker electrodes. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol.29(11), 1245–1250 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee T, Tsai IC, Fu YC et al. MDCT evaluation after closure of atrial septal defect with an Amplatzer septal occluder. Am. J. Roentgenol.188(5), W431–W439 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Wheatley GH III, Opie SR, Maas D et al. Atrial septal occluder device surveillance using 64 multi-slice computed tomography. J. Card. Surg.22(6), 537 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Delaney JW, Li JS, Rhodes JF. Major complications associated with transcatheter atrial septal occluder implantation: a review of the medical literature and the manufacturer and user facility device experience (MAUDE) database. Congenit. Heart Dis.2(4), 256–264 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar