Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 422

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multimodal Assessment of the Aortic Annulus Diameter

Open access
Messika-Zeitoun, David, Serfaty, Jean-Michel, Brochet, Eric, Ducrocq, Gregory, Lepage, Laurent, Detaint, Delphine, Hyafil, Fabien, Himbert, Dominique, Pasi, Nicoletta, Laissy, Jean-Pierre, Iung, Bernard, Vahanian, Alec·2010·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES We sought to compare 3 methods of measurements of the aortic annulus, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), and multislice computed tomography (MSCT), and to evaluate their potential clinical impact on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) strategy. BACKGROUND Exact measurement of the aortic annulus is critical for a patient's selection and successful implantation. METHODS Annulus diameter was measured using TTE, TEE, and MSCT in 45 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis referred for TAVI. The TAVI strategy (decision to implant and choice of the prosthesis' size) was based on manufacturer's recommendations (Edwards-Sapien prosthesis, Edwards Lifesciences, Inc., Irvine, California). RESULTS Correlations between methods were good but the difference between MSCT and TTE (1.22 +/- 1.3 mm) or TEE (1.52 +/- 1.1 mm) was larger than the difference between TTE and TEE (0.6 +/- 0.8 mm; p = 0.03 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Regarding TAVI strategy, agreement between TTE and TEE overall was good (kappa = 0.68), but TAVI strategy would have been different in 8 patients (17%). Agreement between MSCT and TTE or TEE was only modest (kappa = 0.28 and 0.27), and a decision based on MSCT measurements would have modified the TAVI strategy in a large number of patients (40% to 42%). Implantation, performed in 34 patients (76%) based on TEE measurements, was successful in all but 1 patient with grade 3/4 regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS In patients referred for TAVI, measurements of the aortic annulus using TTE, TEE, and MSCT were close but not identical, and the method used has important potential clinical implications on TAVI strategy. In the absence of a gold standard, a strategy based on TEE measurements provided good clinical results.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.06.063

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 422

Metadata

Authors
Messika-Zeitoun, D., Serfaty, J.-M., Brochet, E., Ducrocq, G., Lepage, L., Detaint, D., Hyafil, F., Himbert, D., Pasi, N., Laissy, J.-P., Iung, B., & Vahanian, A.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-01
Volume
55
Issue
3
Pages
186-194
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W13264575
Cited by
422
References
2
FWCI
48.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Multimodal Assessment of the Aortic Annulus Diameter. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.06.063
The paper
Messika-Zeitoun, D., Serfaty, J.-M., Brochet, E., Ducrocq, G., Lepage, L., Detaint, D., Hyafil, F., Himbert, D., Pasi, N., Laissy, J.-P., Iung, B., & Vahanian, A. (2010). Multimodal Assessment of the Aortic Annulus Diameter. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.06.063

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.