Literature DB >> 19457833

Differences in aortic valve area measured with CT planimetry and echocardiography (continuity equation) are related to divergent estimates of left ventricular outflow tract area.

Ethan J Halpern1, Raghuram Mallya, Matthew Sewell, Matisyahu Shulman, Donna R Zwas.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare measurements of aortic valve area (AVA) obtained with coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and to determine whether differences in these estimates are related to underestimation of the area of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) measured with echocardiography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective database review yielded the cases of 41 patients who had undergone CCTA and TTE within a 60-day period. AVA was measured with direct planimetry on CCTA images and was computed with the continuity equation at TTE. To ascertain the effect of LVOT measurements on the continuity equation, AVA was recomputed with substitution of the LVOT area and diameter measured on CCTA images for the dimensions obtained at TTE.
RESULTS: TTE estimates of AVA varied from 0.6 to 7.0 cm(2) and included 10 patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis (AVA < or = 1.5 cm(2)). AVA obtained with CT planimetry was greater than that computed with TTE measurements (mean difference, 0.6 cm(2); p = 0.0037). There was little difference between CT and TTE measurements of LVOT diameter (mean difference, 0.05 cm; p = 0.37), but measurements of LVOT area were significantly greater on CT planimetric images (mean difference, 0.6 cm(2); p = 0.0002). When CT measurements of LVOT area were substituted into the continuity equation in place of LVOT diameter, correlation between the CT planimetric and continuity equation values of AVA improved from r = 0.65 to r = 0.88, whereas the mean difference in AVA between the CT planimetric and continuity equation values decreased to 0.17 cm(2) (p = 0.36).
CONCLUSION: AVA measured with CT planimetry is significantly greater than AVA calculated with the continuity equation. This difference is at least partially related to differences in LVOT area based on LVOT diameter versus direct planimetry of the LVOT area.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19457833     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.1986

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  10 in total

1.  Feasibility of a single-beat prospective ECG-gated cardiac CT for comprehensive evaluation of aortic valve disease using a 256-detector row wide-volume CT scanner: an initial experience.

Authors:  Jin Young Kim; Young Joo Suh; Suyon Chang; Dong Jin Im; Yoo Jin Hong; Hye-Jeong Lee; Jin Hur; Young Jin Kim; Byoung Wook Choi
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  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

3.  MDCT differentiation between bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves in patients with aortic valvular disease: correlation with surgical findings.

Authors:  Ijin Joo; Eun-Ah Park; Kyung-Hwan Kim; Whal Lee; Jin Wook Chung; Jae Hyung Park
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2011-01-08       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 4.  Multimodality Imaging in Aortic Stenosis.

Authors:  Sabir Abdul Karim; Sherif Mahmoud Helmy
Journal:  Heart Views       Date:  2022-05-16

Review 5.  The mystery of defining aortic valve area: what have we learnt from three-dimensional imaging modalities?

Authors:  Ebraham Alskaf; Attila Kardos
Journal:  J Echocardiogr       Date:  2018-02-23

6.  Comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance and transthoracic Doppler echocardiography for the estimation of effective orifice area in aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Julio Garcia; Lyes Kadem; Eric Larose; Marie-Annick Clavel; Philippe Pibarot
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2011-04-28       Impact factor: 5.364

7.  Clinical applications of cardiac CT angiography.

Authors:  Ethan J Halpern
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2010-08-13

8.  Inconsistency in aortic stenosis severity between CT and echocardiography: prevalence and insights into mechanistic differences using computational fluid dynamics.

Authors:  Tarun Kumar Mittal; Luise Reichmuth; Sanjeev Bhattacharyya; Manish Jain; Aigul Baltabaeva; Shelley Rahman Haley; Saeed Mirsadraee; Vasileios Panoulas; Tito Kabir; Edward David Nicol; Miles Dalby; Quan Long
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2019-07-29

9.  Classification of severe aortic stenosis and outcomes after aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Yura Ahn; Se Jin Choi; Soyeoun Lim; Joon Bum Kim; Jong-Min Song; Duk-Hyun Kang; Jae-Kwan Song; Hwa Jung Kim; Joon-Won Kang; Dong Hyun Yang; Dae-Hee Kim; Hyun Jung Koo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-07       Impact factor: 4.996

10.  Normal Values of Cardiac Output and Stroke Volume According to Measurement Technique, Age, Sex, and Ethnicity: Results of the World Alliance of Societies of Echocardiography Study.

Authors:  Hena N Patel; Tatsuya Miyoshi; Karima Addetia; Michael P Henry; Rodolfo Citro; Masao Daimon; Pedro Gutierrez Fajardo; Ravi R Kasliwal; James N Kirkpatrick; Mark J Monaghan; Denisa Muraru; Kofo O Ogunyankin; Seung Woo Park; Ricardo E Ronderos; Anita Sadeghpour; Gregory M Scalia; Masaaki Takeuchi; Wendy Tsang; Edwin S Tucay; Ana Clara Tude Rodrigues; Amuthan Vivekanandan; Yun Zhang; Marcus Schreckenberg; Michael Blankenhagen; Markus Degel; Alexander Rossmanith; Victor Mor-Avi; Federico M Asch; Roberto M Lang
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 7.722

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.