Literature DB >> 21679852

Imaging of the aortic valve using fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography increased valvular fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in aortic stenosis.

Gergana Marincheva-Savcheva1, Sharath Subramanian, Sadia Qadir, Amparo Figueroa, Quynh Truong, Jayanthi Vijayakumar, Thomas J Brady, Udo Hoffmann, Ahmed Tawakol.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Because fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging provides a noninvasive index of inflammation, we sought to assess whether FDG uptake in the aortic valve (AV) is increased in aortic stenosis (AS).
BACKGROUND: AS is associated with valvular inflammation.
METHODS: FDG-PET/computed tomography data were retrospectively evaluated in 84 patients (age 73 ± 9 years, 45% female), 42 patients with AS, and 42 age-matched controls. FDG uptake was determined within the AV while blinded to AS severity. Target-to-background ratio (TBR) was calculated as valvular/blood activity. Stenosis severity was established on echocardiography, and presence of AV calcification was independently assessed on computed tomography.
RESULTS: The aortic valve PET signal (TBR) was increased in AS compared with controls (median 1.53 [interquartile range (IQR): 1.42 to 1.76] vs. 1.34 [IQR: 1.20 to 1.55]; p < 0.001). Further, compared with controls, TBR was increased in mild (median 1.50 [IQR: 1.36 to 1.75]; p = 0.01) and moderate (median 1.70 [IQR: 1.52 to 1.94]; p < 0.001), but not in severe AS (median 1.49 [IQR: 1.40 to 1.54]; p = 0.08). When subjects were categorized according to AV calcification, valvular FDG uptake was increased in mildly (median 1.50 [IQR: 1.36 to 1.79]; p < 0.01) and moderately (median 1.67 [IQR: 1.50 to 1.85]; p < 0.001), but not severely calcified valves (median 1.51 [IQR: 1.38 to 1.54]; p = 0.15), compared with noncalcified valves (median 1.35 [IQR: 1.20 to 1.52]).
CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the hypothesis that AS is an inflammatory condition and suggests that inflammation may be reduced in late-stage disease. This may have important implications in the design of studies assessing the effect of therapeutic agents in modifying progression of AS.
Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21679852     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.12.046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  25 in total

Review 1.  Pathophysiology of Aortic Valve Stenosis: Is It Both Fibrocalcific and Sex Specific?

Authors:  Yoginee Sritharen; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano; Hartzell V Schaff; Grace Casaclang-Verzosa; Jordan D Miller
Journal:  Physiology (Bethesda)       Date:  2017-05

2.  Multimodality and molecular imaging of matrix metalloproteinase activation in calcific aortic valve disease.

Authors:  Jae-Joon Jung; Mahmoud Razavian; Azariyas A Challa; Lei Nie; Reza Golestani; Jiasheng Zhang; Yunpeng Ye; Kerry S Russell; Simon P Robinson; Donald D Heistad; Mehran M Sadeghi
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 3.  The advancing clinical impact of molecular imaging in CVD.

Authors:  Eric A Osborn; Farouc A Jaffer
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2013-12

4.  Genetic Variation in LPA, Calcific Aortic Valve Stenosis in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery, and Familial Risk of Aortic Valve Microcalcification.

Authors:  Nicolas Perrot; Sébastien Thériault; Christian Dina; Hao Yu Chen; S Matthijs Boekholdt; Sidwell Rigade; Audrey-Anne Després; Anthony Poulin; Romain Capoulade; Thierry Le Tourneau; David Messika-Zeitoun; Mikaël Trottier; Michel Tessier; Jean Guimond; Maxime Nadeau; James C Engert; Kay-Tee Khaw; Nicholas J Wareham; Marc R Dweck; Patrick Mathieu; Philippe Pibarot; Jean-Jacques Schott; George Thanassoulis; Marie-Annick Clavel; Yohan Bossé; Benoit J Arsenault
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 14.676

Review 5.  Calcific aortic valve disease: a consensus summary from the Alliance of Investigators on Calcific Aortic Valve Disease.

Authors:  Katherine E Yutzey; Linda L Demer; Simon C Body; Gordon S Huggins; Dwight A Towler; Cecilia M Giachelli; Marion A Hofmann-Bowman; Douglas P Mortlock; Melissa B Rogers; Mehran M Sadeghi; Elena Aikawa
Journal:  Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol       Date:  2014-09-04       Impact factor: 8.311

Review 6.  Molecular imaging of calcific aortic valve disease.

Authors:  Jae-Joon Jung; Farid Jadbabaie; Mehran M Sadeghi
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 7.  Advanced imaging in valvular heart disease.

Authors:  Jeroen J Bax; Victoria Delgado
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2017-01-27       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 8.  Imaging of inflammation and calcification in aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Marc R Dweck; Nikhil V Joshi; James H F Rudd; David E Newby
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 9.  Risk Stratification in Patients With Aortic Stenosis Using Novel Imaging Approaches.

Authors:  Calvin W L Chin; Tania A Pawade; David E Newby; Marc R Dweck
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 7.792

Review 10.  Advanced cardiovascular multimodal imaging and aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Carmen Cionca; Alexandru Zlibut; Lucia Agoston-Coldea; Teodora Mocan
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 4.214

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.