Assessment of aortic valve area in aortic stenosis by magnetic resonance imaging

Outcome of Patients With Low-Gradient “Severe” Aortic Stenosis and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Background—

Retrospective studies have suggested that patients with a low transvalvular gradient in the presence of an aortic valve area <1.0 cm 2 and normal ejection fraction may represent a subgroup with an advanced stage of aortic valve disease, reduced stroke volume, and poor prognosis requiring early surgery. We therefore evaluated the outcome of patients with low-gradient “severe” stenosis (defined as aortic valve area <1.0 cm 2 and mean gradient ≤40 mm Hg) in the prospective Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study.

Methods and Results—

Outcome in patients with low-gradient “severe” aortic stenosis was compared with outcome in patients with moderate stenosis (aortic valve area 1.0 to 1.5 cm 2 ; mean gradient 25 to 40 mm Hg). The primary end point of aortic valve events included death from cardiovascular causes, aortic valve replacement, and heart failure due to aortic stenosis. Secondary end points were major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death. In 1525 asymptomatic patients (mean age, 67±10 years; ejection fraction, ≥55%), baseline echocardiography revealed low-gradient severe stenosis in 435 patients (29%) and moderate stenosis in 184 (12%). Left ventricular mass was lower in patients with low-gradient severe stenosis than in those with moderate stenosis (182±64 versus 212±68 g; P <0.01). During 46 months of follow-up, aortic valve events occurred in 48.5% versus 44.6%, respectively ( P =0.37; major cardiovascular events, 50.9% versus 48.5%, P =0.58; cardiovascular death, 7.8% versus 4.9%, P =0.19). Low-gradient severe stenosis patients with reduced stroke volume index (≤35 mL/m 2 ; n=223) had aortic valve events comparable to those in patients with normal stroke volume index (46.2% versus 50.9%; P =0.53).

Conclusions—

Patients with low-gradient “severe” aortic stenosis and normal ejection fraction have an outcome similar to that in patients with moderate stenosis.

Aortic valve area assessment: multidetector CT compared with cine MR imaging and transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography

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 kappa 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 (kappa=0.88, P<.001) depicted all 21 normal, six of eight mildly stenotic (AVA>or=1.2 cm2 and <2.0 cm2), seven of eight moderately stenotic (AVA>or= 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.

Contrast agent increases doppler velocities and improves reproducibility of aortic valve area measurements in patients with aortic stenosis

Observer variability may limit assessment of aortic stenosis by Doppler echocardiography. This study aimed to assess whether echocardiographic contrast agent improves reproducibility of aortic valve area (AVA) measurements for patients with aortic stenosis. In all, 20 patients with aortic stenosis (67 +/- 10 years old) underwent noncontrast and contrast Doppler echocardiography on 2 occasions, 3 weeks apart. Intraobserver and interobserver coefficients of reproducibility were 0.36 and 0.20 cm for left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter, and 0.38 and 0.24 cm(2) for AVA, respectively. Although intraobserver reproducibility was unaffected, contrast improved interobserver reproducibility for LVOT diameter (mean of differences -0.02 +/- 0.07 cm vs 0.01 +/- 0.10 cm, P <.05) and AVA (mean of differences 0.02 +/- 0.10 cm(2) vs 0.07 +/- 0.12 cm(2), P <.05). Prevalve and postvalve velocities were increased with contrast compared with noncontrast imaging (prevalve, 1.07 +/- 0.20 vs 0.94 +/- 0.19 m/s, P <.01; postvalve, 3.76 +/- 0.87 vs 3.47 +/- 0.78 m/s, P <.01). We conclude that contrast significantly increases Doppler velocities and produces modest improvements in reproducibility of LVOT diameter and AVA. We suggest that, when assessing patients with aortic stenosis, contrast agents should be considered in patients who are difficult to image with poor baseline LVOT images or Doppler studies, or where there is poor interobserver reproducibility.

Quantification of valvular aortic stenosis by magnetic resonance imaging

BACKGROUND

Assessing the aortic valvular orifice is important in judging the severity of aortic stenosis. Magnetic resonance imaging visualizes in-plane valvular motion. We studied the value of magnetic resonance planimetry of the aortic valve orifice.

METHODS

We used breath-hold gradient echocardiographic sequences on a clinical magnetic resonance system (1.5 T) and studied 25 patients with symptomatic valvular aortic stenosis. We performed a planimetry of the valvular orifice in systolic images of the valvular plane. The results were compared with echocardiography (continuity equation) and cardiac catheterization (Gorlin formula).

RESULTS

Magnetic resonance planimetry was feasible in all patients, and the image quality was invariably adequate. The magnetic resonance imaging results correlated well with the data calculated from catheterization and less robustly with the echocardiographic results. The 3 methods were similar in terms of leading to clinical decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that magnetic resonance flow planimetry of the aortic valve orifice offers a simple, reliable, fast, and safe method to noninvasively quantify aortic stenosis.

Three-dimensional surface area of the aortic valve orifice by three-dimensional echocardiography: clinical validation of a novel index for assessment of aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

A direct and accurate method of assessing aortic valve area (AVA) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) is desirable because of the well-known theoretical and practical limitations of the currently available methods. We assessed the clinical feasibility and accuracy of a novel index, the 3-dimensional surface area (3-DSA) of the aortic valve orifice by 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3-DTEE) in patients with AS.

METHODS

Intraoperative 3-DTEE was performed in 23 consecutive patients (mean age 58 +/- 15 years) with valvular AS using a Toshiba SSA-380A system with a multiplane TEE probe and a TomTec EchoScan system. The 3-DTEE acquisition, processing and reconstruction were conducted and the aortic valve orifice presented using a "surgeon's aortotomy view" (aortic valve orifice as if viewed through an open aortic root). The 3-D images were videotaped and calibrated and the 3-DSA measured by planimetry of the inner surface of the aortic valve leaflets at the maximal systolic opening using the dynamic 3-D images. For comparison, the 2-D cross sectional area (2-DCSA) of the aortic valve was also determined by 2-DTEE. The 3-DSA and 2-DCSA were compared with the AVA by the invasive Gorlin formula and the Doppler continuity equation method by transthoracic echocardiography.

RESULTS

The 3-DSA and 2-DCSA measurements were feasible in all but one patient. Both 3-DSA and 2-DCSA correlated moderately well with the AVA by the Gorlin formula (n = 17, r = 0.66, standard error of the estimate [SEE] = 0.3 cm2, P <.05 for 3-DSA and r = 0.61, SEE = 0. 5 cm2 P <.05 for 2-DCSA, respectively). They also correlated well with the AVA by Doppler continuity equation method (n = 22, r = 0.90, SEE = 0.1 cm2, P <.05 for 3-DSA and r = 0.83, SEE = 0.3 cm2, P <.05 for 2-DCSA, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between the 3-DSA and AVA by both the Gorlin formula (Delta = 0.1 +/- 0.3 cm2, P =.3) and the Doppler continuity equation (Delta = -0.0 +/- 0.3 cm2, P =.7). In contrast, the 2-DCSA significantly overestimated AVA by the Gorlin formula (Delta = 0.5 +/- 0.5 cm2, P <.005) and by the Doppler continuity equation (Delta = 0.5 +/- 0.6 cm2, P <.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Planimetry of 3-DSA of the aortic valve orifice by 3-DTEE is a clinically feasible and relatively accurate technique for assessment of AVA and is superior to 2-DCSA by 2-DTEE.

Accuracy of computer-based quantification of aortic valve stenosis

In patients with aortic valve stenosis, the quantification of stenosis is usually performed using fluid-filled catheters and a computerized calculation program. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of this technique in comparison to the manual planimetry of the area between the curves of a simultaneous registration, using a multitip micromanometer catheter. The study was performed in 19 patients, in whom left and right heart catheterization was warranted. Systolic left ventricular and aortic peak pressures were significantly overestimated using a fluid-filled catheter (206 +/- 35 vs. 199 +/- 37 mm Hg, P = 0.0003, and 148 +/- 18 vs. 143 +/- 21 mm Hg, P = 0.0052). However, peak-to-peak pressure gradients were identical comparing both techniques (58 +/- 31 vs. 56 +/- 32 mm Hg, r = 0.983). The mean pressure gradients and aortic valve areas based on simultaneous measurements of left ventricular and aortic pressures by micromanometer catheters were identical to the values determined by a computer-based program using fluid-filled catheters (54 +/- 21 vs. 52 +/- 21 mm Hg, r = 0.923, P < 0.05, and 0.75 +/- 0.25 vs. 0.77 +/- 0.25 cm2, r = 0.935). Thus, the conventional use of fluid-filled catheters and of a computerized calculation of aortic valve area is valid for quantification of aortic stenosis in patients with sinus rhythm and without significant aortic regurgitation.

Determination of aortic valve area in valvular aortic stenosis by direct measurement using intracardiac echocardiography: a comparison with the Gorlin and continuity equations

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to 1) show that intracardiac echocardiography can allow direct measurement of the aortic valve area, and 2) compare the directly measured aortic valve area from intracardiac echocardiography with the calculated aortic valve area from the Gorlin and continuity equations.

BACKGROUND

Intracardiac echocardiography has been used in the descriptive evaluation of the aortic valve; however, direct measurement of the aortic valve area using this technique in a clinical setting has not been documented. Despite their theoretical and practical limitations, the Gorlin and continuity equations remain the current standard methods for determining the aortic valve orifice area.

METHODS

Seventeen patients underwent intracardiac echocardiography for direct measurement of the aortic valve area, including four patients studied both before and after valvuloplasty, for a total of 21 studies. Immediately after intracardiac echocardiography, hemodynamic data were obtained from transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac catheterization.

RESULTS

Adequate intracardiac echocardiographic images were obtained in 17 (81%) of 21 studies. The average aortic valve area (mean +/- SD) determined by intracardiac echocardiography for the 13 studies in the Gorlin analysis group was 0.59 +/- 0.18 cm2 (range 0.37 to 1.01), and the average aortic valve area determined by the Gorlin equation was 0.62 +/- 0.18 cm2 (range 0.31 to 0.88). The average aortic valve area determined by intracardiac echocardiography for the 17 studies in the continuity analysis group was 0.66 +/- 0.23 cm2 (range 0.37 to 1.01), and that for the continuity equation was 0.62 +/- 0.22 cm2 (range 0.34 to 1.06). There was a significant correlation between the aortic valve area determined by intracardiac echocardiography and the aortic valve area calculated by the Gorlin (r = 0.78, p = 0.002) and continuity equations (r = 0.82, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the clinical setting, intracardiac echocardiography can directly measure the aortic valve area with an accuracy similar to the invasive and noninvasive methods currently used. This study demonstrates a new, quantitative use for intracardiac echocardiographic imaging with many potential clinical applications.