| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Cardiac Imaging |
1 From the Division of Cardiology, Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Cliniques Universitaires St Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Av Hippocrate 10/2806, B-1200 Woluwe St Lambert, Belgium. Received June 29, 2006; revision requested August 31; revision received September 19; accepted October 26; final version accepted December 18. Supported by a grant from the Fondation Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique of the Belgian government (FRSM 3.4557.02). A.C.P. supported by a personal grant from the Fondation Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique of the Belgian government. Address correspondence to B.L.G. (e-mail: Bernhard.gerber{at}clin.ucl.ac.be).
Purpose: To prospectively compare the accuracy of multidetector computed tomographic (CT) measurements of the aortic valve area (AVA) with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and cine magnetic resonance (MR) measurements of this area for preoperative examination of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) as the reference standard.
Materials and Methods: After giving informed consent for the institutional review board–approved study protocol, 48 patients (33 men, 15 women; mean age, 62 years ± 13 [standard deviation]) with (n = 27) or without (n = 21) aortic stenosis underwent multidetector CT, cine MR, TTE, and TEE before undergoing cardiac surgery. AVAs derived with manual planimetry by using cine short-axis multidetector CT, MR, and TEE images obtained through the aortic valve were compared among each other and with AVAs measured by using continuity equation TTE at regression and Bland-Altman analyses. The diagnostic accuracy of multidetector CT for detection of aortic stenosis was compared with that of TTE by using 
statistics and receiver operating characteristic curves.
Results: Multidetector CT–derived AVA correlated highly with MR-derived (r = 0.98, P < .001), TEE-derived (r = 0.98, P < .001), and TTE-derived (r = 0.96, P < .001) AVA. Multidetector CT planimetry AVAs (mean AVA ± standard deviation, 2.5 cm2 ± 1.7) were not significantly different from MR planimetry (2.4 cm2 ± 1.8, P > .99) or TEE planimetery (2.5 cm2 ± 1.7, P = .21) AVAs, but they were significantly larger than TTE-derived AVAs (2.0 cm2 ± 1.5, P < .001). With TTE as the reference standard, multidetector CT correctly ( = 0.88, P < .001) depicted all 21 normal, six of eight mildly stenotic (AVA 
1.2 cm2 and < 2.0 cm2), seven of eight moderately stenotic (AVA 0.8 cm2 and < 1.2 cm2), and 10 of 11 severely stenotic (AVA < 0.8 cm2) valves. It also correctly depicted all 14 bicuspid valves identified with TEE, eight of which were missed with TTE.
Conclusion: Multidetector CT enables accurate noninvasive assessment of the AVA.
© RSNA, 2007
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. J. Halpern, R. Mallya, M. Sewell, M. Shulman, and D. R. Zwas Differences in Aortic Valve Area Measured with CT Planimetry and Echocardiography (Continuity Equation) Are Related to Divergent Estimates of Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Area Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2009; 192(6): 1668 - 1673. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Akhtar, E. M. Tuzcu, S. R. Kapadia, L. G. Svensson, R. K. Greenberg, E. E. Roselli, S. Halliburton, V. Kurra, P. Schoenhagen, and S. Sola Aortic root morphology in patients undergoing percutaneous aortic valve replacement: Evidence of aortic root remodeling J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2009; 137(4): 950 - 956. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. J. Cawley, J. H. Maki, and C. M. Otto Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Valvular Heart Disease: Technique and Validation Circulation, January 27, 2009; 119(3): 468 - 478. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Veronesi, C. Corsi, L. Sugeng, V. Mor-Avi, E. G. Caiani, L. Weinert, C. Lamberti, and R. M. Lang A Study of Functional Anatomy of Aortic-Mitral Valve Coupling Using 3D Matrix Transesophageal Echocardiography Circ Cardiovasc Imaging, January 1, 2009; 2(1): 24 - 31. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. M. LaBounty, B. Sundaram, P. Agarwal, W. A. Armstrong, E. A. Kazerooni, and E. Yamada Aortic Valve Area on 64-MDCT Correlates with Transesophageal Echocardiography in Aortic Stenosis Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2008; 191(6): 1652 - 1658. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. P. Dal-Bianco, B. K. Khandheria, F. Mookadam, F. Gentile, and P. P. Sengupta Management of Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 14, 2008; 52(16): 1279 - 1292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. M. Feuchtner, W. Dichtl, S. Muller, D. Jodocy, T. Schachner, A. Klauser, and J. O. Bonatti 64-MDCT for Diagnosis of Aortic Regurgitation in Patients Referred to CT Coronary Angiography Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2008; 191(1): W1 - W7. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Grunenfelder, A. Plass, H. Alkadhi, and M. Genoni Evaluation of biological aortic valve prostheses by dual source computer tomography and anatomic measurements for potential transapical valve-in-valve procedure Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, April 1, 2008; 7(2): 195 - 200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. De Mozzi, U. G. Longo, G. Galanti, and N. Maffulli Bicuspid aortic valve: a literature review and its impact on sport activity Br. Med. Bull., March 1, 2008; 85(1): 63 - 85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
