Grading of aortic valve stenosis at 64-Slice spiral computed tomography: Comparison with transthoracic echocardiography and calibration against cardiac catheterization

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 44, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 360-368

  Lembcke, Alexander ^a,b   Woinke, Michael ^b   Borges, Adrian C ^a   Dohmen, Pascal M ^a   Lachnitt, André ^b   Westermann, Yvonne ^a   Geigenmueller, Anja ^a   Hermann, Kay G A ^a   Butler, Craig ^c   Thiele, Holger ^b   Kivelitz, Dietmar E ^a,b  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

AGED; AORTA VALVE STENOSIS; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DISEASE SEVERITY; DOPPLER FLOWMETRY; FEMALE; HEART CATHETERIZATION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPIRAL COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TRANSTHORACIC ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY;

EID: 67651083486     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181a64d76     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Alkadhi H, Wildermuth S, Plass A, et al. Aortic stenosis: comparative evaluation of 16-detector row CT and echocardiography. Radiology. 2006; 240:47-55.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Feuchtner GM, Müller S, Bonatti J, et al. Sixty-four slice CT evaluation of aortic stenosis using planimetry of the aortic valve area. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;89:197-203.
5. Tanaka H, Shimada K, Yoshida K, et al. The simultaneous assessment of aortic valve area and coronary artery stenosis using 16-slice multidetectorrow computed tomography in patients with aortic stenosis comparison with echocardiography. Circ J. 2007;71:1593-1598.
6. 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.
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. Pouleur AC, le Polain de Waroux JB, Pasquet A, et al. Aortic Valve Area Assessment: MSCT compared with cine MR imaging and transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography. Radiology. 2007;244:745-754.
9. Lembcke A, Thiele H, Lachnitt H, et al. Precision of forty slice spiral computed tomography for quantifying aortic valve stenosis: comparison with echocardiography and validation against cardiac catheterization. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:719-728.
10. Lembcke A, Kivelitz DE, Borges AC, et al. Quantification of aortic valve stenosis: head-to-head comparison of 64-slice spiral computed tomography with transesophageal and transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac catheterization. Invest Radiol. 2009;44:7-14.
11. 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.
12. Gorlin R, Gorlin SG. Hydraulic formula for calculation of the area of the stenotic mitral valve, other cardiac valves, and central circulatory shunts. Am Heart J. 1951;41:1-29.
13. 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): developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2006;114:e84-e231.
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. Gilon D, Cape EG, Handschumacher MD, et al. Effect of three-dimensional valve shape on the hemodynamics of aortic stenosis: three-dimensional echocardiographic stereolithography and patient studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1479-1486.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Cannon SR, Richards KL, Crawford M. Hydraulic estimation of stenotic orifice area: a correction of the Gorlin formula. Circulation. 1985;71:1170-1178.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Danielsen R, Nordrehaug JE, Vik-Mo H. Factors affecting Doppler echocardiographic valve area assessment in aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 1989;63: 1107-1111.
34. Poh KK, Levine RA, Solis J, et al. Assessing aortic valve area in aortic stenosis by continuity equation: a novel approach using real-time threedimensional echocardiography. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:2526-2535.
35. Baumgartner H. Is there a role for multislice computed tomography in aortic stenosis? Eur Heart J. 2006;27:2923-2924.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. Dewey M, Rutsch W, Schnapauff D, et al. Coronary artery stenosis quantification using multislice computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:78-84.
39. 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.