In 38 consecutive patients the pulmonary autograft was used in aortic root replacement. Investigations were performed with transthoracic echocardiography, transoesophageal echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging in 31, 27 and 27 patients respectively. The mean age at operation was 28.7 years (range 1.90-52.0) and the follow-up period was 2.8 years (range 0.8-6.7). The pulmonary autograft diameter was measured at the subannular region (1) at the annulus at the hinge points of the valve leaflets (2), at the sinus (3), at the sino-tubular junction (4) and at the distal part of the autograft (5). With transoesophageal echocardiography the mean systolic measurements at levels 1 to 5 were 32, 31, 42, 35 and 34 mm, respectively. The corresponding diastolic measurements were smaller: 25, 28, 42, 35 and 34 mm respectively. There was no significant difference between transthoracic echocardiography and transoesophageal echocardiography measurements of the proximal autograft (levels 1-3). Diameters obtained with magnetic resonance imaging were 1 to 3 mm larger than those obtained with transthoracic echocardiography and transoesophageal echocardiography (P < 0.05), except the annulus at systole (P > 0. 3). Conclusions. The mean pulmonary autograft diameters measured using transthoracic echocardiography, transoesophageal echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging were larger than native aortic and pulmonary diameters of a normal population in the same age group. Diameters of the distal 2 levels could not be imaged reliably with transthoracic echocardiography. Magnetic resonance imaging diameter measurements were, in general, larger than with echocardiography.

, , ,
doi.org/10.1053/euhj.1997.0745, hdl.handle.net/1765/65733
European Heart Journal
Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Hokken, R.B, de Bruin, H.G, Taams, M.A, Schiks-Berghout, M, Steyerberg, E.W, Bogers, A.J.J.C, … Bos, E. (1998). A comparison of adult pulmonary autograft diameter measurements with echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging. European Heart Journal, 19(2), 301–309. doi:10.1053/euhj.1997.0745