Precision of forty slice spiral computed tomography for quantifying aortic valve stenosis: Comparison with echocardiography and validation against cardiac catheterization

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 43, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 719-728

  Lembcke, Alexander ^a,b   Thiele, Holger ^a   Lachnitt, André ^a   Enzweiler, Christian N H ^b   Wagner, Moritz ^a   Hein, Patrick A ^b   Eddicks, Stephan ^b   Kivelitz, Dietmar E ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^b CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Aortic valve stenosis; Cardiac catheterization; Computed tomography; Echocardiography; Quantification

Indexed keywords

IOPROMIDE;

ADULT; AGED; AORTA ROOT; AORTA VALVE DISEASE; AORTA VALVE STENOSIS; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE SEVERITY; DOPPLER ECHOGRAPHY; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; ELECTROCARDIOGRAM; FEMALE; HEART CATHETERIZATION; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE OUTFLOW TRACT; HUMAN; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SPIRAL COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TRANSTHORACIC ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; ULTRASOUND; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECHOGRAPHY; IMAGE PROCESSING; INSTRUMENTATION; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AORTIC VALVE STENOSIS; FEMALE; HEART CATHETERIZATION; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; TOMOGRAPHY, SPIRAL COMPUTED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 58149382120     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318184d7c5     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kami C, et al. 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 Angiog-raphy and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2006;114:e84-e231.
2. Alkadhi H, Wildermuth S, Plass A, et al. Aortic stenosis: comparative evaluation of 16-detector row CT and echocardiography. Radiology. 2006;240:47-55.
3. Bouvier E, Logeart D, Sablayrolles JL, et al. Diagnosis of aortic valvular stenosis by multislice cardiac computed tomography. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27:3033-3038.
4. Feuchtner GM, Dichtl W, Friedrich GJ, et al. Multislice computed tomography for detection of patients with aortic valve stenosis and quantification of severity. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1410-1417.
5. Feuchtner GM, Muller S, Bonatti J, et al. Sixty-four slice CT evaluation of aortic stenosis using planimetry of the aortic valve area. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:197-203.
6. Pouleur AC, le Polain de Waroux JB, Pasquet A, et al. Aortic valve area assessment: multidetector CT compared with cine MR imaging and transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography. Radiology. 2007; 244:745-754.
7. Habis M, Daoud B, Roger VL, et al. Comparison of 64-slice computed tomography planimetry and Doppler echocardiography in the assessment of aortic valve stenosis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2007;16:216-224.
8. Laissy JP, Messika-Zeitoun D, Serfaty JM, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of preoperative patients with aortic valve stenosis: usefulness of cardiac multidetector computed tomography. Heart. 2007;93:l 121 - 1125.
9. Kupfahl C, Honold M, Meinhardt G, et al. Evaluation of aortic stenosis by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with established routine clinical techniques. Heart. 2004;90:893-901.
10. Dewey M, Laule M, Krug L, et al. Multisegment and halfscan reconstruction of 16-slice computed tomography for detection of coronary artery stenoses. Invest Radiol. 2004;39:223-229.
11. Dewey M, Muller M, Teige F, et al. Multisegment and halfscan reconstruction of 16-slice computed tomography for assessment of regional and global left ventricular myocardial function. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:400-409.
12. Quinones MA, Otto CM, Stoddard M, et al. Recommendations for quantification of Doppler echocardiography: a report from the Doppler Quantification Task Force of the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2002;15:167-184.
13. Gorlin R, Gorlin SG. Hydraulic formula for calculation of the area of the stenotic mitral valve, other cardiac valves, and central circulatory shunts. I. Am Heart J. 1951 ;41 :l-29.
14. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1:307 - 310.
15. Buck T, Hunold P, Wentz KU, et al. Tomographic three-dimensional echocardiographic determination of chamber size and systolic function in patients with left ventricular aneurysm: comparison to magnetic resonance imaging, cineventriculography, and two-dimensional echocardiography. Circulation. 1997;96:4286-4297.
16. Cannon SR, Richards KL, Crawford M. Hydraulic estimation of stenotic orifice area: a correction of the Gorlin formula. Circulation. 1985;71: 1170-1178.
17. Segal J, Lerner DJ, Miller DC, et al. When should Doppler-determined valve area be better than the Gorlin formula?: Variation in hydraulic constants in low flow states. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987;9:1294-1305.
18. Tardif JC, Rodrigues AG, Hardy JF, et al. Simultaneous determination of aortic valve area by the Gorlin formula and by transesophageal echocardiography under different transvalvular flow conditions. Evidence that anatomic aortic valve area does not change with variations in flow in aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;29:1296-1302.
19. Lipkin DP, Poole-Wilson PA. Measurement of cardiac output during exercise by the thermodilution and direct Fick techniques in patients with chronic congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 1985;56:321-324.
20. Rubin SA, Siemienczuk D, Nathan MD, et al. Accuracy of cardiac output, oxygen uptake, and arteriovenous oxygen difference at rest, during exercise, and after vasodilator therapy in patients with severe, chronic heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 1982;50:973-978.
21. van Grondelle A, Ditchey RV, Groves BM, et al. Thermodilution method overestimates low cardiac output in humans. Am J Physiol. 1983;245:H690-H692.
22. Nishikawa T, Dohi S. Errors in the measurement of cardiac output by thermodilution. Can J Anaesth. 1993;40:142-153.
23. Stetz CW, Miller RG, Kelly GE, et al. Reliability of the thermodilution method in the determination of cardiac output in clinical practice. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1982;126:1001-1004.
24. Sommers MS, Woods SL, Courtade MA. Issues in methods and measurement of thermodilution cardiac output. Nurs Res. 1993;42:228-233.
25. Axler O, Tousignant C, Thompson CR, et al. Comparison of transesophageal echocardiographic, fick, and thermodilution cardiac output in critically ill patients. J Crit Care. 1996; 11:109-116.
26. Schobel WA, Voelker W, Haase KK, et al. Extent, determinants and clinical importance of pressure recovery in patients with aortic valve stenosis. Eur Heart J. 1999;20:1355-1363.
27. Assey ME, Zile MR, Usher BW, et al. Effect of catheter positioning on the variability of measured gradient in aortic stenosis. Caihet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1993;30:287-292.
28. Takenaka A, Iwase M, Sobue T, et al. The discrepancy between echocardiography, cineventriculography and thermodilution. Evaluation of left ventricular volume and ejection fraction, Int J Card Imaging. 1995;11:255-262.
29. Omran H, Schmidt H, Hackenbroch M, et al. Silent and apparent cerebral embolism after retrograde catheterisation of the aortic valve in valvular stenosis: a prospective, randomised study. Lancet. 2003;361: 1241-1246.
30. de Bono D. Complications of diagnostic cardiac catheterisation: results from 34,041 patients in the United Kingdom confidential enquiry into cardiac catheter complications. The Joint Audit Committee of the British Cardiac Society and Royal College of Physicians of London. Br Heart J. 1993;70:297-300.
31. Gwost J, Stoebe T, Chesler E, et al. Analysis of the complications of cardiac catheterization over nine years. Caihet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1982; 8:13-21.
32. Fischer JL, Haberer T, Dickson D, et al. Comparison of Doppler echocardiographic methods with heart catheterisation in assessing aortic valve area in 100 patients with aortic stenosis. Br Heart J. 1995;73:293-298.
33. Burwash IG, Pearlman AS, Kraft CD, et al. Flow dependence of measures of aortic stenosis severity during exercise. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;24:1342-1350.
34. Niederberger J, Schima H, Maurer G, et al. Importance of pressure recovery for the assessment of aortic stenosis by Doppler ultrasound. Role of aortic size, aortic valve area, and direction of the stenotic jet in vitro. Circulation. 1996;94:1934-1940.
35. Danielsen R, Nordrehaug JE, Vik-Mo H. Factors affecting Doppler echocardiographic valve area assessment in aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 1989;63:1107-1111.
36. Berglund H, Kim CJ, Nishioka T, et al. Influence of ejection fraction and valvular regurgitation on the accuracy of aortic valve area determination. Echocardiography. 2001; 18:65-72.
37. Geibel A, Gornandt L, Kasper W, et al. Reproducibility of Doppler echocardiographic quantification of aortic and mitral valve stenoses: comparison between two echocardiography centers. Am J Cardiol. 1991;67:1013-1021.
38. Bernard Y, Meneveau N, Vuillemenot A, et al. Planimetry of aortic valve area using multiplane transoesophageal echocardiography is not a reliable method for assessing severity of aortic stenosis. Heart. 1997; 78:68-73.
39. Debl K, Djavidani B, Seitz J, et al. Planimetry of aortic valve area in aortic stenosis by magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2005;40: 631-636.
40. Abbara S, Pena AJ, Maurovich-Horvat P, et al. Feasibility and optimization of aortic valve planimetry with MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 188:356-360.
41. Baumert B, Plass A, Bettex D, et al. Dynamic cine mode imaging of the normal aortic valve using 16-channel multidetector row computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:637-647.
42. DeGroff CG, Shandas R, Valdes-Cruz L. Analysis of the effect of flow rate on the Doppler continuity equation for stenotic orifice area calculations: a numerical study. Circulation. 1998;97:1597-1605.
43. Baumgartner H. Is there a role for multislice computed tomography in aortic stenosis? Eur Heart J. 2006;27:2923-2924.
44. Jassal DS, Shapiro MD, Neilan TG, et al. 64-slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for detection of aortic regurgitation and quantification of severity. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:507-512.
45. Mahnken AH, Bruder H, Suess C, et al. Dual-source computed tomography for assessing cardiac function: a phantom study. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:491-498.
46. Bruners P, Mahnken AH, Knackstedt C, et al. Assessment of global left and right ventricular function using dual-source computed tomography (DSCT) in comparison to MRI: an experimental study in a porcine model. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:756-764.
47. Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Trindade PT, et al. Left Ventricular and Left Atrial Dimensions and Volumes: Comparison Between Dual-Source CT and Echocardiography. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:284-289.
48. Dewey M, Rutsch W, Schnapauff D, et al. Coronary artery stenosis quantification using multislice computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:78-84.
49. Johnson TR, Nikolaou K, Busch S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of dual-source computed tomography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:684-691.
50. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. Jama. 2007;298:317-323.