| Literature DB >> 30866989 |
Narumol Chaosuwannakit1, Pattarapong Makarawate2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Substantial development of cardiac computed tomography angiography (CTA) technology in the last decade has commanded to increase usage of this modality for assessing infective endocarditis (IE). The objective of this study is to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of preoperative cardiac CTA imaging as opposed to transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in the assessment of complications associated to IE, with comparison to surgical findings.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiac compute tomography; Computed tomography angiography; Infective endocarditis; Valvular heart disease
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30866989 PMCID: PMC6417118 DOI: 10.1186/s13019-019-0880-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg ISSN: 1749-8090 Impact factor: 1.637
Fig. 1A 43-year-old man with a mechanical aortic valve. An aortic valve view (a) and cinematic reconstruction image (b) of cardiac CTA showing multiple paravalvular pseudoaneurysms (arrows). Noted the left anterior descending artery was located just above the pseudoaneurysm which demonstrated clearly by cardiac CTA. The pseudoaneurysm could not be detected on TTE due to the shadowing of the mechanical aortic valve
Fig. 2Dehiscence of a mechanical aortic valve in setting of endocarditis complicated by pseudoaneurysm (arrows) and malalignment of prosthesis with tissue defect between annulus and prosthesis representing dehiscence (double headed arrow)
Fig. 3A 34-year-old man with rheumatic valve disease. On cardiac CTA showing nodular low-density lesions at aortic valve (arrow). Clinically, vegetation of rheumatic valve disease was suspected. In the operation, vegetation was noted in the rheumatic pathology of the aortic valve
Evaluation of pseudoaneurysm, abscess, vegetation and dehiscence
| Diagnostic performance | All | Native valve | Prosthetic valve | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT ( | TTE (n = 24) |
| CT (n = 14) | TTE ( |
| CT (n = 10) | TTE ( |
| |
| Pseudoaneurysm/abscess (%) | |||||||||
| Sensitivity | 91.5 | 15.79 | < 0.0001 | 83.3 | 14.29 | < 0.0001 | 100 | 16.67 | < 0.0001 |
| Specificity | 81.25 | 81.25 | 1.0 | 87.5 | 85.7 | 0.43 | 75.0 | 75.0 | 1.0 |
| PPV | 84.5 | 50.0 | 0.0017 | 83.3 | 50.0 | 0.0023 | 85.7 | 50.0 | 0.0013 |
| NPV | 93.75 | 43.75 | < 0.0001 | 87.5 | 50.0 | 0.0008 | 100 | 37.5 | < 0.0001 |
| Vegetation (%) | |||||||||
| Sensitivity | 94.1 | 94.5 | 0.74 | 92.3 | 92.3 | 1.0 | 85.7 | 87.5 | 0.59 |
| Specificity | 66.67 | 50.0 | 0.49 | 50.0 | 66.67 | 0.49 | 66.67 | 33.3 | 0.0005 |
| PPV | 85.7 | 85.7 | 1.0 | 85.7 | 92.3 | 0.66 | 85.7 | 77.78 | 0.26 |
| NPV | 66.67 | 53.3 | 0.09 | 66.67 | 66.67 | 1.0 | 66.67 | 50 | 0.06 |
| Dehiscence | |||||||||
| Sensitivity | 66.67 | 66.67 | 1.0 | 66.67 | 66.67 | 1.0 | 66.67 | 66.67 | 1.0 |
| Specificity | 75.0 | 50.0 | 0.22 | 75.0 | 50.0 | 0.22 | 75.0 | 50.0 | 0.22 |
| PPV | 66.67 | 50.0 | 0.06 | 66.67 | 50.0 | 0.06 | 66.67 | 50.0 | 0.06 |
| NPV | 75.0 | 66.67 | 0.24 | 75.0 | 66.67 | 0.24 | 75.0 | 66.67 | 0.24 |