Literature DB >> 18791414

Precision of forty slice spiral computed tomography for quantifying aortic valve stenosis: comparison with echocardiography and validation against cardiac catheterization.

Alexander Lembcke1, Holger Thiele, André Lachnitt, Christian N H Enzweiler, Moritz Wagner, Patrick A Hein, Stephan Eddicks, Dietmar E Kivelitz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the precision of multislice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) for the quantification of aortic valve stenosis in comparison with echocardiography and cardiac catheterization.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electrocardiogram-gated MSCT scan (detector collimation 40 x 6.25 mm, gantry rotation time 420 milliseconds, pitch 0.2, tube voltage 120 KV, tube current 333 mA) was performed in 32 patients with known aortic valve stenosis. In each patient the aortic valve orifice area (AVA) was determined by planimetry on MSCT and compared with the results obtained from transthoracic Doppler echocardiography (using the continuity equation) and cardiac catheterization (using the Gorlin formula).
RESULTS: Planimetry of the AVA on MSCT was feasible in all cases. The AVA on MSCT (1.11 +/- 0.49 cm2) was significantly larger compared with echocardiography (0.81 +/- 0.37 cm2, P < 0.001) and cardiac catheterization (0.87 +/- 0.45 cm2, P < 0.001). The correlations between MSCT and echocardiography (r = 0.86, limits of agreement +/-0.52 cm2) and also between MSCT and cardiac catheterization (r = 0.90, limits of agreement +/-0.44 cm2) were good, but inferior to the correlation between echocardiography and cardiac catheterization (r = 0.94, limits of agreement +/-0.32 cm2). Using an AVA of 1.0 cm at cardiac catheterization as reference standard, the best cut-off level for detecting severe-to-critical stenosis at MSCT was an AVA of 1.20 cm, resulting in a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 91%, 100%, and 94%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: AVA determined by MSCT correlates well with echocardiography and cardiac catheterization. However, AVA derived from MSCT is consistently larger, requiring an adjustment of cut-off values for the classification of stenosis severity and therapeutic decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18791414     DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318184d7c5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  4 in total

1.  Aortic valve area assessed with 320-detector computed tomography: comparison with transthoracic echocardiography.

Authors:  Linnea Hornbech Larsen; Klaus Fuglsang Kofoed; Helle Gervig Carstensen; Mads Rams Mejdahl; Mads Jønsson Andersen; Jesper Kjaergaard; Olav Wendelboe Nielsen; Lars Køber; Rasmus Møgelvang; Christian Hassager
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  Comprehensive assessment of the severity and mechanism of aortic regurgitation using multidetector CT and MR.

Authors:  Céline Goffinet; Valérie Kersten; Anne-Catherine Pouleur; Jean-Benoit le Polain de Waroux; David Vancraeynest; Agnès Pasquet; Jean-Louis Vanoverschelde; Bernhard L Gerber
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-08-05       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Quantification of stenotic mitral valve area and diagnostic accuracy of mitral stenosis by dual-source computed tomography in patients with atrial fibrillation: comparison with cardiovascular magnetic resonance and transthoracic echocardiography.

Authors:  Song Soo Kim; Sung Min Ko; Meong Gun Song; Hyun Kun Chee; Jun Suk Kim; Hweung Kon Hwang; Jae-Hwan Lee
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 2.357

4.  Imaging of cardiac valves by computed tomography.

Authors:  Gudrun Feuchtner
Journal:  Scientifica (Cairo)       Date:  2013-12-29
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.