Literature DB >> 21222037

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

Ijin Joo1, Eun-Ah Park, Kyung-Hwan Kim, Whal Lee, Jin Wook Chung, Jae Hyung Park.   

Abstract

To identify multi-detector computed tomographic (MDCT) features discriminating bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs) from tricuspid aortic valves (TAVs) in patients with aortic valvular disease using surgical findings as reference. Forty-five patients underwent ECG-gated cardiac MDCT scans prior to aortic valve replacement. Morphologic patterns of aortic valves on MDCT were classified into: bicuspid without raphe (A), fused valve with a fish-mouth opening (B), fused valve without a fish-mouth opening (C), and tricuspid without fusion (D). To differentiate congenital raphe of BAV from commissural fusion of TAV, MDCT features of patterns B and C were evaluated. Diameters of the aortic root and ascending aorta between patients with BAVs and TAVs were also compared. Patterns A (n = 6) and B (n = 6) were all bicuspid, in pattern C: 8 of 26 (30.8%) were bicuspid, and pattern D (n = 7) were all tricuspid. In patterns B and C, uneven cusp size, round-shaped opening and midline calcification at leaflet fusion were strongly associated with BAVs (all, P < 0.05). The mean length of leaflet fusion in BAVs was significantly larger than in TAVs (13.5 vs. 8.7 mm, P < 0.0001), with a cutoff value of 10.3 mm providing a sensitivity of 85.7%, a specificity of 83.3%, and an area under the ROC curve of 0.90. In all patients, the mean diameter of the ascending aorta was larger in patients with BAVs than with TAVs (43.3 vs. 39.7 mm, P < 0.05). MDCT features of uneven cusp size, round-shaped opening, midline calcification, longer leaflet fusion and larger diameter of the ascending aorta can be helpful in distinguishing BAVs from TAVs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21222037     DOI: 10.1007/s10554-010-9780-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1569-5794            Impact factor:   2.357


  32 in total

1.  The congenitally bicuspid aortic valve: how does it function? Why does it fail?

Authors:  Francis Robicsek; Mano J Thubrikar; Joseph W Cook; Brett Fowler
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 4.330

2.  The anatomy of the aortic root.

Authors:  Denis Berdajs; Patonay Lajos; Marko Turina
Journal:  Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2002-08

3.  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.

Authors:  Robert O Bonow; Blase A Carabello; Kanu Chatterjee; Antonio C de Leon; David P Faxon; Michael D Freed; William H Gaasch; Bruce Whitney Lytle; Rick A Nishimura; Patrick T O'Gara; Robert A O'Rourke; Catherine M Otto; Pravin M Shah; Jack S Shanewise; Sidney C Smith; Alice K Jacobs; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; Elliott M Antman; Valentin Fuster; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon A Hunt; Bruce W Lytle; Rick Nishimura; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2006-08-01       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 4.  Bicuspid aortic valves and dilated aortas: a critical review of the ACC/AHA practice guidelines recommendations.

Authors:  Robert O Bonow
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2008-05-02       Impact factor: 2.778

Review 5.  MDCT evaluation of aortic valvular disease.

Authors:  Robert C Gilkeson; Alan H Markowitz; Amit Balgude; Peter B Sachs
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Cardiac CT for the differentiation of bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves: comparison with echocardiography and surgery.

Authors:  Hatem Alkadhi; Sebastian Leschka; Pedro T Trindade; Gudrun Feuchtner; Paul Stolzmann; André Plass; Stephan Baumueller
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 7.  The bicuspid aortic valve.

Authors:  Alan C Braverman; Hasan Güven; Michael A Beardslee; Majesh Makan; Andrew M Kates; Marc R Moon
Journal:  Curr Probl Cardiol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.200

8.  Failure to prevent progressive dilation of ascending aorta by aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve: comparison with tricuspid aortic valve.

Authors:  Hisayo Yasuda; Satoshi Nakatani; Marie Stugaard; Yuko Tsujita-Kuroda; Ko Bando; Junjiro Kobayashi; Masakazu Yamagishi; Masafumi Kitakaze; Soichiro Kitamura; Kunio Miyatake
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2003-09-09       Impact factor: 29.690

9.  Impact of valvular calcification on the diagnostic accuracy of transesophageal echocardiography for the detection of congenital aortic valve malformation.

Authors:  Akash Makkar; Tariq S Siddiqui; Marcus F Stoddard; Robert K Lewis; Buddhadeb Dawn
Journal:  Echocardiography       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 1.724

10.  Aortic valve area assessment: multidetector CT compared with cine MR imaging and transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography.

Authors:  Anne-Catherine Pouleur; Jean-Benoît le Polain de Waroux; Agnès Pasquet; Jean-Louis J Vanoverschelde; Bernhard L Gerber
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-07-13       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  6 in total

1.  Morphological assessment of the aortic valve using coronary computed tomography angiography, cardiovascular magnetic resonance, and transthoracic echocardiography: comparison with intraoperative findings.

Authors:  Seung Choul Lee; Sung Min Ko; Meong Gun Song; Je Kyoun Shin; Hyun Keun Chee; Hweung Kon Hwang
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-05-17       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  Characteristics of aortic valve dysfunction and ascending aorta dimensions according to bicuspid aortic valve morphology.

Authors:  Hong Ju Shin; Je Kyoun Shin; Hyun Kun Chee; Jun Suk Kim; Sung Min Ko
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Fused aortic valve without an elliptical-shaped systolic orifice in patients with severe aortic stenosis: cardiac computed tomography is useful for differentiation between bicuspid aortic valve with raphe and tricuspid aortic valve with commissural fusion.

Authors:  So Hyeon Bak; Sung Min Ko; Meong Gun Song; Je Kyoun Shin; Hyun Kun Chee; Jun Suk Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Diagnostic accuracy study of routine echocardiography for bicuspid aortic valve: a retrospective study and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mathias Hillebrand; Dietmar Koschyk; Pia Ter Hark; Helke Schüler; Meike Rybczynski; Jürgen Berger; Amit Gulati; Alexander M Bernhardt; Christian Detter; Evaldas Girdauskas; Stefan Blankenberg; Yskert von Kodolitsch
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2017-08

Review 5.  Evaluation of the aortic and mitral valves with cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Sung Min Ko; Meong Gun Song; Hweung Kon Hwang
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-11-09       Impact factor: 2.357

6.  Vascular calcifying progenitor cells possess bidirectional differentiation potentials.

Authors:  Hyun-Ju Cho; Hyun-Jai Cho; Ho-Jae Lee; Myung-Kang Song; Ji-Yun Seo; Yeon-Hee Bae; Ju-Young Kim; Hae-Young Lee; Whal Lee; Bon-Kwon Koo; Byung-Hee Oh; Young-Bae Park; Hyo-Soo Kim
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 8.029

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.