Quantification of aortic valve stenosis: Head-to-head comparison of 64-slice spiral computed tomography with transesophageal and transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac catheterization

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 7-14

  Lembcke, Alexander ^a,b   Kivelitz, Dietmar E ^a,b   Borges, Adrian C ^c   Lachnitt, André ^b   Hein, Patrick A ^a   Dohmen, Pascal M ^a   Thiele, Holger ^b  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^c Departments of Cardiology

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

IMERON 350; IOMEPROL; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ADULT; AGED; AORTA VALVE STENOSIS; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE SEVERITY; DOPPLER ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HEART CATHETERIZATION; HUMAN; IMAGING SYSTEM; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SPIRAL COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; TRANSESOPHAGEAL ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; TRANSTHORACIC ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; METHODOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

AGED; AORTIC VALVE STENOSIS; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY, TRANSESOPHAGEAL; FEMALE; HEART CATHETERIZATION; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, SPIRAL COMPUTED;

EID: 65349181399     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31818f769b     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu 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). 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 XL, et al. Diagnosis of aortic valvular stenosis by multislice cardiac computed tomography. Eur Heart J.2006;27: 3033-3038.
4. Tanaka H, Shimada K, Yoshida K, et al. The simultaneous assessment of aortic valve area and coronary artery stenosis using 16-slice multidetector-row computed tomography in patients with aortic stenosis comparison with echocardiography. Circ J.2007;71:1593-1598.
5. 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.
6. Feuchtner GM, Miiller 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.
7. 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;93:1121-1125.
8. Habis M, Daoud B, Rogerv 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.
9. Pouleur AC, le Polain de Waroux JB, Pasquet A, et al. Aortic valve area assessment: multidetector CT compared with cine MR imaging and transtho-racic and transesophageal echocardiography. Radiology. 2007;244:745-754.
10. Lembcke A, Thiele H, Lachnitt A, et al. Precision of 40-slice spiral computed tomography for quantifying aortic valve stenosis: comparison with echocardiography and validation against cardiac catheterization. Invest Radiol. 2008; 43:719-728.
11. Nakaura T, Awai K, Yauaga Y, et al. Contrast injection protocols for coronary computed tomography angiography using a 64-detector scanner: comparison between patient weight-adjusted- and fixed iodine-dose protocols. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:512-519.
12. Rosenhek R, Binder T, Porenta G, et al. Predictors of outcome in severe, asymptomatic aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:611-617.
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;41:1-29.
14. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;l:307-310.
15. Buck T, Hunold P, Wentz KU, et al. Tomographic three-dimensional echo-cardiographic 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. 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.
17. de Bono D. Complications of diagnostic cardiac catheterisation: results from 34,041 patients in the United Kingdom confidential enquiry into cardiac catheter complications. Br Heart J. 1993;70:297-300.
18. Gwost J, Stoebe T, Chesler E, et al. Analysis of the complications of cardiac catheterization over nine years. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1982;8:13-21.
19. 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.
20. Rodrigo FA. Estimation of valve area and valvular resistance; a critical study of the physical basis of the methods employed. Am Heart J. 1953;45:1-12.
21. Cannon SR, Richards KL, Crawford M. Hydraulic estimation of stenotic orifice area: a correction of the Gorlin formula. Circulation. 1985;71:1170-1178.
22. Cannon SR, Richards KL, Crawford MH, et al. Inadequacy of the Gorlin formula for predicting prosthetic valve area. Am J Cardiol. 1988;62:113-116.
23. 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.
24. 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.
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. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1993;30:287-292.
28. Fischer XL, 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Danielsen R, Nordrehaug JE, Vik Mo H. Factors affecting Doppler echocardiographic valve area assessment in aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 1989;63: 1107-1111.
33. 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.
34. Bernard Y, MeneveauN, 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.
35. Hoffmann R, Flachskampf FA, Hanrath P. Planimetry of orifice area in aortic stenosis using multiplane transesophageal echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22:529-534.
36. Tribouilloy C, Shen WF, Peltier M, et al. Quantitation of aortic valve area in aortic stenosis with multiplane transesophageal echocardiography: comparison with monoplane transesophageal approach. Am Heart J. 1994;128:526-532.
37. Kim KS, Maxted W, Nanda NC, et al. Comparison of multiplane and biplane transesophageal echocardiography in the assessment of aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79:436-441.
38. Baumgartner H. Is there a role for multislice computed tomography in aortic stenosis? Eur Heart J.2006;27:2923-2924.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Dewey M, Rutsch W, Schnapauff D, et al. Coronary artery stenosis quantification using multislice computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:78-84.
44. 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.
45. Gilard M, Cornily JC, Pennec PY, et al. Accuracy of multislice computed tomography in the preoperative assessment of coronary disease in patients with aortic valve stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:2020-2024.
46. Holmstrom M, Sillanpää MA, Kupari M, et al. Eight-row multidetector computed tomography coronary angiography evaluation of significant coronary artery disease in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2006;22:703-710.
47. Meijboom WB, Mollet NR, Van Mieghem CA, et al. Pre-operative computed tomography coronary angiography to detect significant coronary artery disease in patients referred for cardiac valve surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1658-1665.
48. Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, et al. Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation. 2006;l 13:1305-1310.
49. Wintersperger BJ, Nikolaou K, von Ziegler F, et al. Image quality, motion artifacts, and reconstruction timing of 64-slice coronary computed tomography angiography with 0.33-second rotation speed. Invest Radiol. 2006;41: 436-442.