Comparison of left ventricular outflow geometry and aortic valve area in patients with aortic stenosis by 2-dimensional versus 3-dimensional echocardiography

Dimensionless index and outcome in patients with aortic valve disease

PURPOSE

Assessment of aortic stenosis (AS) is based on aortic valve (AV) gradients and calculation of aortic valve area (AVA). These parameters are influenced by flow and dependent on geometric assumptions. The dimensionless index (DI), the ratio of the LVOT time-velocity integral to that of the AV jet, is simple to perform, and is less susceptible to error but has only been examined in small selected groups of AS patients. The objective of this study was to assess the DI and prognosis in a large cohort.

METHODS

All subjects who underwent echocardiography with an assessment of the AV that included DI were included. Association between AV parameters including mean gradient, AVA, DI and AV resistance and mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations was examined.

RESULTS

A total of 9393 patients (mean age 71 ± 16 years; 53% male) were included. 731 (7.7%) patients had DI less than .25. Increasing age and a diagnosis of heart failure were significantly associated with lower DI. Subjects with low DI had significantly lower ventricular function, a higher incidence of mitral and tricuspid regurgitation, worse diastolic function and more elevated pulmonary pressures. Decreasing DI was associated with significantly decreased survival and event-free survival which remained highly significant on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large population of patients with AV disease, decreased DI, was associated with increased mortality and decreased event-free survival. The easily obtained DI identifies a broad range of AS subjects with worse prognosis and should be integrated into the assessment of these complex patients.

Differences in aortic valve area measured on cardiac CT and echocardiography in patients with aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

A certain proportion of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) present with discordant grading between different diagnostic modalities, which raises uncertainty about the true severity of AS. The aim of this study was to compare the aortic valve area (AVA) measured on CT and echocardiography and demonstrate the factors affecting AVA discrepancies.

METHODS

Between June 2011 and March 2016, 535 consecutive patients (66.83±8.80 years, 297 men) with AS who underwent pre-operative cardiac CT and echocardiography for aortic valve replacement were retrospectively included. AVA was obtained by AVA on echocardiography (AVAecho) and CT (AVACT) using a measurement of the left ventricular outflow tract on each modality and correlations between those measures were evaluated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors affecting the discordance for grading severe AS.

RESULTS

The AVACT and AVAecho showed a high correlation (r: 0.79, P <0.001) but AVACT was larger than the AVAecho (difference 0.26 cm2, P <0.001). By using the cut-off values of AVACT (<1.2 cm2) and AVAecho (<1.0 cm2) for diagnosing severe AS, the BSA (odds ratio [OR]: 68.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.45-849.99; P = 0.001), AVAecho (OR: 1.19, 95%CI: 1.14-1.24; P <0.001), tricuspid valve morphology (OR: 2.83, 95%CI: 1.23-6.50; P = 0.01), and normalized annulus area (OR: 1.02; 95%CI:1.02-1.03; P <0.001) were significant factors associated with the discordance between the AVAecho and AVACT.

CONCLUSION

Patients with larger BSA, AVAecho, and annulus, and tricuspid valve morphology were associated with the AVA discordance between the echocardiography and CT. Complementary use of CT with echocardiography for grading severe AS could be helpful in such conditions.

Quantification of Significant Aortic Stenosis by Echocardiography versus Four-Dimensional Cardiac Computed Tomography: A Multi-Modality Imaging Study

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) grading of aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging when parameters are discrepant, and four-dimensional cardiac computed tomography (4D-CCT) is increasingly utilized for transcatheter intervention workup. We compared TTE and 4D-CCT measures contributing to AS quantification. AS patients (n = 80, age 86 ± 10 years, 71% men) referred for transcatheter replacement in 2014−2017 were retrospectively studied, 20 each with high-gradient AS (HG-AS), classical and paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS (CLFLG-AS and PLFLG-AS), and normal-flow low-gradient AS (NFLG-AS). Correlation and Bland−Altman analyses were performed between TTE and 4D-CCT parameters. There were moderate-to-high TTE versus 4D-CCT correlations for left ventricular volumes, function, mass, and outflow tract dimensions (r = 0.51−0.88), though values were mostly significantly higher by 4D-CCT (p < 0.001). Compared with 4D-CCT planimetry of aortic valve area (AVA), TTE estimates had modest correlation (r = 0.37−0.43) but were significantly lower (by 0.15−0.32 cm2). The 4D-CCT estimate of LVSVi lead to significant reclassification of AS subtype defined by TTE. In conclusion, 4D-CCT quantified values were higher than TTE for the left ventricle and AVA, and the AS subtype was reclassified based on LVSVi by 4D-CCT, warranting further research to establish its clinical implications and optimal thresholds in severe AS management.

Calculation of Aortic VAlve and LVOT Areas by a Modified Continuity Equation Using Different Echocardiography Methods: The CAVALIER Study

Background: The area of the left ventricular outflow tract (A_LVOT) represents a major component of the continuity equation (CE), which is, i.a., crucial to calculate the aortic valve (AV) area (A_AV). The A_LVOT is typically calculated using 2D echo assessments as the measured anterior–posterior (a/p) extension, assuming a round LVOT base. Anatomically, however, usually an elliptical shape of the LVOT base is present, with the long diameter extending from the medial–lateral axis (m/l), which is not recognized by two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography. Objective: We aimed to compare standard and three-dimensional (3D)-echocardiography-derived A_LVOT calculation and its use in a standard CE (CE_std) and a modified CE (CE_mod) to calculate the A_AV vs. computed tomography (CT) multi-planar reconstruction (MPR) measurements of the anatomical A_LVOT, and A_AV, respectively. Methods: Patients were selected if 3D transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), and cardiac CT were all performed, and imaging quality was adequate. The A_LVOT was assessed using 2D calculation, (a/p only), 3D-volume MPR, and 3D-biplane calculation (a/p and m/l). A_AV was measured using both CE_std and CE_mod, and 3D-volume MPR. Data were compared to corresponding CT analyses. Results: From 2017 to 2018, 107 consecutive patients with complete and adequate imaging data were included. The calculated A_LVOT was smaller when assessed by 2D- compared to both 3D-volume MPR and 3D-biplane calculation. Calculated A_AV was correspondingly smaller in CE_std compared to CE_mod or 3D-volume MPR. The A_LVOT and A_AV, using data from 3D echocardiography, highly correlated and were congruent with corresponding measurements in CT. Conclusion: Due to the elliptic shape of the LVOT, use of measurements and calculations based on 2D echocardiography systematically underestimates the A_LVOT and dependent areas, such as the A_AV. Anatomically correct assessment can be achieved using 3D echocardiography and adapted calculations, such as CE_mod.

Comparison of Simultaneous Transthoracic Versus Transesophageal Echocardiography for Assessment of Aortic Stenosis

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the gold standard for aortic stenosis (AS) assessment. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) provides better resolution, but its effect on AS assessment is unclear. To answer this question, we studied 56 patients with ≥moderate AS. Initial TTE (TTE1) was followed by conscious sedation with simultaneous TEE and TTE2. Based on conservative versus actionable implication, AS types were dichotomized into group A, comprising moderate and normal-flow low-gradient, and group B, comprising high gradient, low ejection fraction low-flow low-gradient, and paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS. Paired analysis of echocardiographic variables and AS types measured by TEE versus TTE2 and by TEE versus TTE1 was performed. TEE versus simultaneous TTE2 comparison demonstrated higher mean gradients (31.7 ± 10.5 vs 27.4 ± 10.5 mm Hg) and velocities (359 ± 60.6 vs 332 ± 63.1 cm/s) with TEE, but lower left ventricular outflow velocity-time-integral (VTI₁) (18.6 ± 5.1 vs 20.2 ± 6.1 cm), all p <0.001. This resulted in a lower aortic valve area (0.8 ± 0.21 vs 0.87 ± 0.28 cm²), p <0.001, and a net relative risk of 1.86 of group A to B upgrade. TEE versus (awake state) TTE1 comparison revealed a larger decrease in VTI₁ because of a higher initial awake state VTI₁ (22 ± 5.6 cm), resulting in similar Doppler-velocity-index and aortic valve area decrease with TEE, despite a slight increase in mean gradients of 0.8 mm Hg (confidence interval -1.44 to 3.04) and velocities of 10 cm/s (confidence interval -1.5 to 23.4). This translated into a net relative risk of 1.92 of group A to B upgrade versus TTE1. In conclusion, TEE under conscious sedation overestimates AS severity compared with both awake state TTE and simultaneous sedation state TTE, accounted for by different Doppler insonation angles obtained in transapical versus transgastric position.

Low-Gradient aortic stenosis; the diagnostic dilemma

Low-gradient (LG) aortic valve stenosis (AS) constitutes a significant subset among patients with severe aortic stenosis. This entity represents one of the most challenging heart conditions when it comes to diagnosis and management, mainly because of the discrepancy between the small aortic valve area (≤1.0 cm²) that is considered a severe AS, and low mean transvalvular pressure gradient (<40 mmHg), which is one of the criteria for nonsevere AS. LG AS is divided according to transvalvular aortic flow rate into normal-flow LG AS and low-flow LG (LFLG) AS; the latter category can be divided further according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) into classical LFLG AS if LVEF is depressed or paradoxical LFLG AS if LVEF is preserved. The primary diagnostic challenge in patients with LG AS is to confirm that AS is truly severe and not pseudosevere, which is assessed mainly by either dobutamine stress echocardiography or multidetector computed tomography. The management of symptomatic true severe LG AS is mainly by aortic valve replacement (AVR), whether surgical or transcatheter approach. Patients with LG severe AS have a generally worse prognosis and higher mortality compared with patients with high-gradient severe AS. Despite the survival benefit of AVR in patients with true severe LG AS, these patients have higher surgical risk post-AVR compared with high-gradient AS patients. Early recognition and correct diagnosis of a patient with LG AS is crucial to improve their mortality and morbidity.

Valvulo-Arterial Impedance and Dimensionless Index for Risk Stratifying Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

The hemodynamic effects of aortic stenosis (AS) consist of increased left ventricular (LV) afterload, reduced myocardial compliance, and increased myocardial workload. The LV in AS patients faces a double load: valvular and arterial loads. As such, the presence of symptoms and occurrence of adverse events in AS should better correlate with calculating the global burden faced by the LV in addition to the transvalvular gradient and aortic valve area (AVA). The valvulo-arterial impedance (Zva) is a useful parameter providing an estimate of the global LV hemodynamic load that results from the summation of the valvular and vascular loads. In addition to calculating the global LV afterload, it is paramount to estimate the stenosis severity accurately. In clinical practice, the management of low-flow low-gradient (LF-LG) severe AS with preserved LV ejection fraction requires careful confirmation of stenosis severity. In addition to the Zva, the dimensionless index (DI) is a very useful parameter to express the size of the effective valvular area as a proportion of the cross-section area of the left ventricular outlet tract velocity-time integral (LVOT-VTI) to that of the aortic valve jet (dimensionless velocity ratio). The DI is calculated by a ratio of the sub-valvular velocity obtained by pulsed-wave Doppler (LVOT-VTI) divided by the maximum velocity obtained by continuous-wave Doppler across the aortic valve (AV-VTI). In contrast to AVA measurement, the DI does not require the calculation of LVOT cross-sectional area, a major cause of erroneous assessment and underestimation of AVA. Hence, among patients with LG severe AS and preserved LV ejection fraction, calculation of DI in routine echocardiographic practice may be useful to identify a subgroup of patients at higher risk of mortality who may derive benefit from aortic valve replacement. This article aims to elucidate the Zva and DI in different clinical situations, correlate with the standard indexes of AS severity, LV geometry, and function, and thus prove to improve risk stratification and clinical decision making in patients with severe AS.

Application of the proximal isovelocity surface area method for estimation of the effective orifice area in aortic stenosis

Although the echocardiographic effective orifice area (EOA) calculated using the continuity equation is widely used for the assessment of severity in aortic stenosis (AS), the existence of high flow velocity at the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) potentially causes its overestimation. The proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) method could be an alternative tool for the estimation of EOA that limits the influence of upstream flow velocity. EOA was calculated using the continuity equation (EOA_Cont) and PISA method (EOA_PISA), respectively, in 114 patients with at least moderate AS. The geometric orifice area (GOA) was also measured using the planimetry method in 51 patients who also underwent three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography. Patients were divided into two groups according to the median LVOT flow velocity. EOA_PISA could be obtained in 108 of the 114 patients (95%). Although there was a strong correlation between EOA_Cont and EOA_PISA (r = 0.78, P < 0.001), EOA_Cont was statistically significantly larger than EOA_PISA (0.86 ± 0.33 vs 0.75 ± 0.29 cm², P < 0.001). Both EOA_Cont and EOA_PISA similarly correlated with GOA (r = 0.70, P < 0.001 and r = 0.77, P < 0.001, respectively). However, a fixed bias, which is hydrodynamically supposed to exist between EOA and GOA, was not observed between EOA_Cont and GOA. In contrast, there was a negative fixed bias between EOA_PISA and GOA with smaller EOA_PISA than GOA. The difference between EOA_Cont and GOA was significantly greater with a larger EOA_Cont relative to GOA in patients with high LVOT flow velocity than in those without (0.16 ± 0.25 vs - 0.07 ± 0.10 cm², P < 0.001). In contrast, the difference between EOA_PISA and GOA was consistent regardless of the LVOT flow velocity (- 0.07 ± 0.12 vs - 0.07 ± 0.15 cm², P = 0.936). The PISA method was applied to estimate EOA in patients with AS. EOA_PISA could be an alternative parameter for AS severity grading in patients with high LVOT flow velocity in whom EOA_Cont would potentially overestimate the orifice area.

Normal Values of Cardiac Output and Stroke Volume According to Measurement Technique, Age, Sex, and Ethnicity: Results of the World Alliance of Societies of Echocardiography Study

BACKGROUND

Assessment of cardiac output (CO) and stroke volume (SV) is essential to understand cardiac function and hemodynamics. These parameters can be examined using three echocardiographic techniques (pulsed-wave Doppler, two-dimensional [2D], and three-dimensional [3D]). Whether these methods can be used interchangeably is unclear. The influence of age, sex, and ethnicity on CO and SV has also not been examined in depth. In this report from the World Alliance of Societies of Echocardiography Normal Values Study, the authors compare CO and SV in healthy adults according to age, sex, ethnicity, and measurement techniques.

METHODS

A total of 1,450 adult subjects (53% men) free of heart, lung, and kidney disease were prospectively enrolled in 15 countries, with even distributions among age groups and sex. Subjects were divided into three age groups (young, 18-40 years; middle aged, 41-65 years; and old, >65 years) and three main racial groups (whites, blacks, and Asians). CO and SV were indexed (cardiac index [CI] and SV index [SVI], respectively) to body surface area and height and measured using three echocardiographic methods: Doppler, 2D, and 3D. Images were analyzed at two core laboratories (one each for 2D and 3D).

RESULTS

CI and SVI were significantly lower by 2D compared with both Doppler and 3D methods in both sexes. SVI was significantly lower in women than men by all three methods, while CI differed only by 2D. SVI decreased with aging by all three techniques, whereas CI declined only with 2D and 3D. CO and SV were smallest in Asians and largest in whites, and the differences persisted after normalization for body surface area.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results provide normal reference values for CO and SV, which differ by age, sex, and race. Furthermore, CI and SVI measurements by the different echocardiographic techniques are not interchangeable. All these factors need to be taken into account when evaluating cardiac function and hemodynamics in individual patients.

Assessment of left ventricular outflow tract and aortic root: comparison of 2D and 3D transthoracic echocardiography with multidetector computed tomography

AIMS

Accurate echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) and the aortic root is necessary for risk stratification and choice of appropriate treatment in patients with pathologies of the aortic valve and aortic root. Conventional 2D transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) assessment is based on the assumption of a circular shaped LVOT and aortic root, although previous studies have indicated a more ellipsoid shape. 3D TTE and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) applies planimetry and are not dependent on geometrical assumptions. The aim was to test accuracy, feasibility, and reproducibility of 3D TTE compared to 2D TTE assessment of LVOT and aortic root areas, with MDCT as reference.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined 51 patients with 2D/3D TTE and MDCT at the same day. All patients were re-examined with 2D/3D TTE on a different day to evaluate 2D and 3D re-test variability. Areas of LVOT, aortic annulus, and sinus were assessed using 2D, 3D TTE, and MDCT. Both 2D/3D TTE underestimated the areas compared to MDCT; however, 3D TTE areas were significantly closer to MDCT-areas. 2D vs. 3D mean MDCT-differences: LVOT 1.61 vs. 1.15 cm2, P = 0.019; aortic annulus 1.96 vs. 1.06 cm2, P < 0.001; aortic sinus 1.66 vs. 1.08 cm2, P = 0.015. Feasibility was 3D 76-79% and 2D 88-90%. LVOT and aortic annulus areas by 3D TTE had lowest variabilities; intraobserver coefficient of variation (CV) 9%, re-test variation CV 18-20%.

CONCLUSION

Estimation of LVOT and aortic root areas using 3D TTE is feasible, more precise and more accurate than 2D TTE.

The Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Changes in Size and Shape From Pre- to Post-Cardiopulmonary Bypass: Three-Dimensional Transesophageal Echocardiography

OBJECTIVES

To compare two-dimensional (2D) and 3D imaging of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) and to evaluate geometric changes pre- to post-cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).

DESIGN

Retrospective review of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiographic examinations.

SETTING

Single academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

The study comprised 69 cardiac surgical patients-27 with aortic valve stenosis (AS) and 42 without AS.

INTERVENTIONS

Two-dimensional and 3D analysis of the LVOT pre- and post-CPB.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Pre- and post-CPB 2D assessment of LVOT diameter (2D LVOTd) was compared with 3D analysis of the minor (3D LVOTd-min) and major diameters. LVOT areas (LVOTa) were calculated using LVOTd to yield 2D LVOTa and 3D LVOTa-min. These were compared with LVOTa measured by planimetry (3D LVOTa-plan). An ellipticity ratio (ER) (ER = 3D minor/major axes) was calculated. The 2D LVOTd was larger than the 3D LVOTd-min before (2.12 v 2.02 cm respectively (resp); p < 0.001) and after (1.96 v 1.85 cm resp; p = 0.04) CPB. Compared with pre-CPB, there were significant decreases in the 2D LVOTd (p = 0.003) and the 3D LVOTd-min (p < 0.001) post-CPB. Ellipticity increased after CPB (ER 0.80 v 0.75; p = 0.004), and the 2D LVOTa was larger than the 3D LVOTa-min before CPB (3.60 cm²v 3.28 cm²; p < 0.001) and less so after CPB (3.11 cm²v 2.79 cm²; p = 0.053). Compared with pre-CPB, all LVOTa measurements decreased significantly after CPB (p < 0.001). The 3D LVOTa-plan decreased after CPB by approximately 10% (4.05 cm²v 3.61 cm²; p < 0.001). The 2D LVOTa and 3D LVOTa-min underestimated the 3D LVOTa-plan before and after CPB (p < 0.001) by 11% to 14% and 19% to 23%, respectively. When compared with non-AS patients, patients with AS had a smaller LVOTa pre- and post-CPB (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The LVOT is smaller and more elliptical after CPB. Patients with AS have a smaller LVOT compared with non-AS patients. LVOTa calculated using LVOTd underestimates the 3D LVOTa-plan by as much as 23% depending on patient type and timing of measurement. Accurate assessment of the LVOT requires 3D imaging.

Outcome implication of sex-related effective orifice area normalized to body size in aortic stenosis

INTRODUCTION

Although several echocardiographic parameters have different values according to sex, there are no studies in echocardiographic variables of aortic stenosis (AS) severity. Our aim was to evaluate the sex-related prognosis of several echocardiographic parameters in AS.

METHODS

Two hundred and twenty-five patients with at least moderate AS (effective orifice area [EOA] ≤ 1.50 cm² ) were prospectively enrolled. EOA was normalized to body surface area (BSA), height, and body mass index (BMI). Receiver operating characteristic curves, in women and men separately, were plotted to determine the best cutoff value for predicting cardiovascular death.

RESULTS

The largest area under the curve (AUC) to predict cardiovascular death was EOA in men (AUC 0.74, P < .001) and EOA/height in women (AUC 0.81, P < .001). An EOA/height cutoff value of 0.55 cm² /m in women had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 61%; a cutoff of 0.50 cm² /m in men obtained a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 56%. During a mean follow-up of 247 ± 183 days, there were 33 cardiovascular deaths. Women with EOA/height ≤ 0.55 cm² /m had higher cardiovascular mortality (22% vs 0%, P < .001) and men with EOA/height ≤ 0.50 cm² /m (21% vs 2%, P < .001). One-year survival in women with EOA/height ≤ 0.55 cm² /m was 67 ± 8% and 100 ± 0% in EOA/height > 0.55 cm² /m (P < .001). In men, 1-year survival was 70 ± 8% in EOA/height ≤ 0.50 cm² /m, and 93 ± 6% in EOA/height > 0.50 cm² /m (P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Normalization of EOA is useful in AS, especially in women. We recommend using an EOA/height cutoff value of 0.55 cm² /m in women, and 0.50 cm² /m in men to identify a subgroup with higher cardiovascular risk.

A pairwise meta-analytic comparison of aortic valve area determined by planimetric versus hemodynamic methods in aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve area (AVA) is commonly determined from 2-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (2D TTE) by the continuity equation; however, this method relies on geometric assumptions of the left ventricular outflow tract which may not hold true. This study compared mean differences and correlations for AVA by planimetric (2-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography [2D TEE], 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography [3D TEE], 3-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography [3D TTE], multi-detector computed tomography [MDCT], and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) with hemodynamic methods (2D TTE and catheterization) using pairwise meta-analysis.

METHOD

Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library (Wiley) were queried for studies comparing AVA measurements assessed by planimetric and hemodynamic techniques. Pairwise meta-analysis for mean differences (using random effect model) and for correlation coefficients (r) were performed.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies (3014 patients) were included. Mean differences between planimetric and hemodynamic techniques were 0.12 cm² (95%CI 0.10-0.15) for AVA (pooled r = 0.84; 95%CI 0.76-0.90); 1.36cm² (95%CI 1.03-1.69) for left ventricular outflow tract area; and 0.13 cm (95%CI 0.07-0.20) for annular diameter (pooled r = 0.76; 95% CI 0.64-0.94); 0.67 cm² (95%CI 0.59-0.76) for annular area (pooled r = 0.74; 95%CI 0.55-0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Planimetric techniques slightly, but significantly, overestimate AVA when compared to hemodynamic techniques.

Direct Planimetry of Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Area by Simultaneous Biplane Imaging: Challenging the Need for a Circular Assumption of the Left Ventricular Outflow Tract in the Assessment of Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of aortic stenosis (AS) requires calculation of aortic valve area (AVA), which relies on the assumption of a circular-shaped left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). However, the LVOT is often elliptical, and the circular assumption underestimates the true LVOT area (LVOTA). Biplane imaging using transthoracic echocardiography allows direct planimetry of LVOTA. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of obtaining LVOTA using this technique and its impact on the discordance between AVA and gradient criteria in AS grading.

METHODS

We prospectively studied 134 patients (median age, 80 years; interquartile range, 73-87 years; 39% women) with AS, including 82 (61%) with severe AS and 52 (39%) with mild or moderate AS. LVOTA was traced using direct planimetry (LVOTA_biplane) and compared with LVOTA calculated using the circular assumption (LVOTA_circ). In a subset of patients who underwent cardiac computed tomography, direct planimetry of LVOTA was used as a reference standard.

RESULTS

LVOTA_biplane was significantly larger than LVOTA_circ (4.20 cm² [interquartile range, 3.66-4.90 cm²] vs 3.73 cm² [interquartile range, 3.14-4.15 cm²], P < .001). Among 30 patients who underwent cardiac computed tomography, LVOTA_biplane had better agreement with LVOTA by direct planimetry than LVOTA_circ (mean bias, -0.45 ± 0.63 vs -1.02 ± 0.63 cm²; P < .0001). Of 82 patients with severe AS (AVA ≤ 1 cm² using LVOTA_circ), 40 (49%) had discordant mean gradient (<40 mm Hg). By using LVOTA_biplane, patients with discordant AVA and mean gradient decreased from 49% to 27% (P = .004), and 29% of patients with severe AS were reclassified with moderate AS, with the highest percentage of reclassification in the group with low-gradient AS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct planimetry using biplane imaging avoids the inherent underestimation of LVOTA using the circular assumption. LVOTA obtained by biplane planimetry can lead to better concordance between AVA and mean gradient and classification of AS severity.

Aortic valve area using computed tomography-derived correction factor to improve the validity of left ventricular outflow tract measurements

AIMS

Given the inherent inaccuracies stemming from the assumption that the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) is circular, this study aimed to improve the accuracy of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE)-based aortic valve area (AVA) calculation using continuity equation (CE) by introducing a correction factor (CF) derived from multidetector computed tomography angiography (MDCTA) images and validate it in aortic stenosis (AS) patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective study used MDCTA images of 400 patients for modeling and 403 TTE dataset for validation. Echocardiographic parasternal long-axis view was modeled using MDCTA, and LVOT diameter (D1) was measured. Direct planimetry of LVOT area was performed and subsequently converted into a theoretical circle. The assumed circle (D2) diameter was derived, and D2/D1 was calculated and termed as the CF. The CF was 1.13, and it improved the agreement between MDCTA- and TTE-derived LVOT areas and correlation between AVA and peak velocity, mean pressure gradient, and velocity ratio. In discordant subgroups of severe AS, the CF reclassified patients to moderate AS in 40% in the low flow (LF), low gradient (LG), and low ejection fraction (EF) group; 53% in the LF, LG, and normal EF group; and 68% in the LF, high gradient, and normal EF group.

CONCLUSIONS

CF of 1.13 derived from MDCTA improved the accuracy of TTE-derived LVOT area and AVA and improved correlation with hemodynamic variables in AS patients. Reclassification of AS patients using CF may have clinical applicability for patient selection for early intervention.

Left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral in hospitalized heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Aims

The prognostic implication of left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (LVOT‐VTI) on admission in hospitalized heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients has not been determined. We sought to investigate whether LVOT‐VTI on admission is associated with worse clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with HFpEF.

Methods and results

We studied consecutive 214 hospitalized HFpEF patients who had accessible LVOT‐VTI data on admission, from a prospective HFpEF‐specific multicentre registry. The primary outcome of interest was the composite of all‐cause death and readmission due to heart failure. During a median follow‐up period of 688 (interquartile range 162–810) days, the primary outcome occurred in 83 patients (39%). The optimal cut‐off value of LVOT‐VTI for the primary outcome estimated by receiver operating characteristic analysis was 15.8 cm. Lower LVOT‐VTI was significantly associated with the primary outcome compared with higher LVOT‐VTI (P = 0.005). Multivariable Cox regression analyses revealed that lower LVOT‐VTI was an independent determinant of the primary outcome (hazard ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.91–0.98). In multivariable linear regression, haemoglobin level was the strongest independent determinant of LVOT‐VTI among clinical parameters (β coefficient = −0.61, P = 0.007). Furthermore, patients with lower LVOT‐VTI and anaemia had the worst clinical outcomes among the groups (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Lower admission LVOT‐VTI was an independent determinant of worse clinical outcomes in hospitalized HFpEF patients, indicating that LVOT‐VTI on admission might be useful for categorizing a low‐flow HFpEF phenotype and risk stratification in hospitalized HFpEF patients.

Prognostic value of aortic valve area normalized to body size in native aortic stenosis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Although guidelines recommend the use of a cutoff value of 0.60 cm²/m² for aortic valve area (AVA) normalized to body surface area (BSA) for severe aortic stenosis, there is little evidence of its prognostic value. Our aim was to test the value of AVA normalized to body size for outcome prediction in aortic stenosis.

METHODS

One-hundred and ninety patients with at least moderate aortic stenosis (AVA <1.50 cm²) were prospectively enrolled. AVA was normalized to BSA and height. The primary endpoint was cardiovascular death under medical management. A receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted to determine the best cutoff value for predicting cardiovascular death.

RESULTS

An AVA/BSA cutoff value of 0.50 had a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 51%. An AVA/height cutoff value of 0.49 showed a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 52%. During a mean follow-up of 247±190 days, there were 24 cardiovascular deaths, with higher cardiovascular mortality in patients with AVA/BSA <0.50 cm²/m² (21% vs 2.5%, P <.001) and AVA/height <0.49 cm²/m (25% vs 12%, P <.001). Two-year survival was 95±5% in patients with AVA/BSA> 0.50 cm²/m² and was 37±5% in patients with AVA/BSA <0.50 cm²/m² (P <.001). Cardiovascular death risk was higher in patients with AVA/BSA <0.50 cm²/m² (adjusted 10.9 [1.2-103.7], P=.037), but cardiovascular mortality was not significantly higher in multivariate analysis for patients with AVA/height <0.49 cm²/m (2.0 [0.6-6.0], P=.22).

CONCLUSIONS

We could identify a subgroup of patients at high risk of cardiovascular death when they were medically treated. Consequently we recommend using an AVA/BSA cutoff value of 0.50 cm²/m² to identify a subgroup of patients with higher cardiovascular risk.

Significance of echocardiographic evaluation for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is widely accepted as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS). Existing scientific evidence demonstrates that TAVI is superior to SAVR, and it is expected that indications for the clinical applications of TAVI will be expanded in the future. Echocardiography plays a key role in perioperative assessment of patients undergoing TAVI. Preprocedural echocardiographic evaluation is important to determine the severity of AS in addition to patients' anatomical suitability for TAVI. Furthermore, echocardiography is essential for intraoperative guidance, assessment of complications, postoperative evaluation, and prognostic prediction. Inaccurate echocardiographic measurements and evaluation can lead to less-than-optimal/inappropriate treatment strategies in patients with AS. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the limitations of echocardiographic evaluation is important. This review summarizes the role of echocardiographic evaluation in patients undergoing TAVI.

Reliability of three-dimensional color flow Doppler and two-dimensional pulse wave Doppler transthoracic echocardiography for estimating cardiac output after cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional color flow Doppler (3DCF) is a new convenient technique for cardiac output (CO) measurement. However, to date, no one has evaluated the accuracy of 3DCF echocardiography for CO measurement after cardiac surgery. Therefore, this single-center, prospective study was designed to evaluate the reliability of three-dimensional color flow and two-dimensional pulse wave Doppler (2D-PWD) transthoracic echocardiography for estimating cardiac output after cardiac surgery.

METHODS

Post-cardiac surgical patients with a good acoustic window and a low dose or no dose of vasoactive drugs (norepinephrine < 0.05 μg/kg/min) were enrolled for CO estimation. Three different methods (third generation FloTrac/Vigileo™ [FT/V] system as the reference method, 3DCF, and 2D-PWD) were used to estimate CO before and after interventions (baseline, after volume expansion, and after a dobutamine test).

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients were enrolled in this study, and 59 pairs of CO measurements were collected (one pair was not included because of increasing drainage after the dobutamine test). Pearson's coefficients were 0.260 between the CO-FT/V and CO-PWD measurements and 0.729 between the CO-FT/V and CO-3DCF measurements. Bland-Altman analysis showed the bias between the absolute values of CO-FT/V and CO-PWD measurements was - 0.6 L/min with limits of agreement between - 3.3 L/min and 2.2 L/min, with a percentage error (PE) of 61.3%. The bias between CO-FT/V and CO-3DCF was - 0.14 L/min with limits of agreement between - 1.42 L /min and 1.14 L/min, with a PE of 29.9%. Four-quadrant plot analysis showed the concordance rate between ΔCO-PWD and ΔCO-3FT/V was 93.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

In a comparison with the FT/V system, 3DCF transthoracic echocardiography could accurately estimate CO in post-cardiac surgical patients, and the two methods could be considered interchangeable. Although 2D-PWD echocardiography was not as accurate as the 3D technique, its ability to track directional changes was reliable.

Three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography is an attractive alternative to cardiac multi-detector computed tomography for aortic annular sizing: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiac imaging is the cornerstone of the pretranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) assessment. Multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) is considered the conventional imaging modality. However, there is still no definitive gold standard. Targeted cohort of inoperable high-risk patients with underlying comorbidities, particularly renal impairment, makes apparent the need for MDCT alternative. We aimed to demonstrate the correlation extent between MDCT and three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3DTEE) aortic annular area measures and to answer the question: Is 3DTEE a good alternative to MDCT?

METHODS

A systematic literature search and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the degree of correlation and agreement between 3DTEE and MDCT aortic annular sizing. A thorough assessment of EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was performed. All studies comparing 3DTEE and MDCT in relation to aortic annular sizing were included.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included (N = 1228 patients). A strong linear correlation was found between 3DTEE and MDCT measurements of aortic annulus area (r = 0.84, P < 0.001), mean perimeter (r = 0. 0.85, P < 0.001), and mean diameter (r = 0.80, P < 0.001). Bland-Altman plots revealed smaller mean 3DTEE values in comparison to MDCT for aortic annular area, the mean difference being -2.22 mm² with 95% limits of agreement -12.79 to 8.36.

CONCLUSION

Aortic annulus measurements obtained by 3DTEE demonstrated a high level of correlation with those evaluated by MDCT. This makes 3DTEE a feasible choice for aortic annulus assessment, with advantage of real time assessment, lack of contrast, and no radiation exposure.

Geometry of the left ventricular outflow tract assessed by 3D TEE in patients with aortic stenosis: impact of upper septal hypertrophy on measurements of Doppler-derived left ventricular stroke volume

BACKGROUND

It is unclear how upper septal hypertrophy (USH) affects Doppler-derived left ventricular stroke volume (SV) in patients with AS. The aims of this study were to: (1) validate the accuracy of 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) measurements of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), (2) evaluate the differences in LVOT geometry between AS patients with and without USH, and (3) assess the impact of USH on measurement of SV.

METHODS

In protocol 1, both 3D TEE and multi-detector computed tomography were performed in 20 patients with AS [aortic valve area (AVA) ≤ 1.5 cm²]. Multiplanar reconstruction was used to measure the LVOT short and long diameters in four parts from the tip of the septum to the annulus. In protocol 2, the same 3D TEE measurements were performed in AS patients (AVA ≤ 1.5 cm², n = 129) and controls (n = 30). We also performed 2D and 3D transthoracic echocardiography in all patients.

RESULTS

In protocol 1, excellent correlations of LVOT parameters were found between the two modalities. In protocol 2, the USH group had smaller LVOT short and long diameters than the non-USH group. Although no differences in mean pressure gradient, or SV calculated with the 3D method existed between the two groups, the USH group had greater SV calculated with the Doppler method (73 ± 15 vs. 66 ± 15 ml) and aortic valve area (0.89 ± 0.26 vs. 0.73 ± 0.24 cm²) than the non-USH group.

CONCLUSIONS

3D TEE can provide a precise assessment of the LVOT in AS. USH affects the LVOT geometry in patients with AS, which might lead to inaccurate assessments of disease severity.

The mystery of defining aortic valve area: what have we learnt from three-dimensional imaging modalities?

Aortic valve area is one of the main criteria used by echocardiography to determine the degree of valvular aortic stenosis, and it is calculated using the continuity equation which assumes that the flow volume of blood is equal at two points, the aortic valve area and the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). The main fallacy of this equation is the assumption that the LVOT area which is used to calculate the flow volume at the LVOT level is circular, where it is often an ellipse and sometimes irregular. The aim of this review is to explain the physiology of the continuity equation, the different sources of errors, the added benefits of using three-dimensional imaging modalities to measure LVOT area, the latest recommendations related to valvular aortic stenosis, and to introduce future perspectives. A literature review of studies comparing aortic valve area and LVOT area, after using three-dimensional data, has shown underestimation of both measurements when using the continuity equation. This has more impact on patients with discordant echocardiographic measurements when aortic valve area is disproportionate to haemodynamic measurements in assessing the degree of aortic stenosis. Although fusion imaging modalities of LVOT area can help in certain group of patients to address the issue of aortic valve area underestimation, further research on introducing a correction factor to the conventional continuity equation might be more rewarding, saving patients additional tests and potential radiation, with no clear evidence of cost-effectiveness.

The role of echocardiography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an effective and less invasive treatment for the increasing population of individuals with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Echocardiography is crucial in the assessment of AS patients from pre- to post-procedure. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) may be used to assess patient suitability for TAVI, as well as evaluate the severity of AS, the aortic valve complex, aortic valve morphology, mitral regurgitation (MR), and left ventricular function. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is usually used as an intra-procedural monitoring tool to provide feedback during the procedure, to assess prosthetic valve function, and to detect complications rapidly before and after balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) or transcatheter heart valve (THV) deployment. In this review, the role of echocardiography in the pre-, intra-, and post-TAVI procedure periods is described in detail.

Modified continuity equation using left ventricular outflow tract three-dimensional imaging for aortic valve area estimation

PURPOSE

Aortic valve area (AVA) is usually estimated by the continuity equation (CE) in which the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) area is calculated assuming a circular shape. This study aimed to compare measurements of LVOT area using standard 2D transthoracic echocardiography (2DTTE), 3D transesophageal echocardiography (3DTEE), and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and assess their relative impact on AVA estimated by the CE.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We prospectively enrolled 60 patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) referred for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) who systematically underwent 2DTTE, 3DTEE, and MDCT. Mean LVOT areas obtained by 2DTTE (3.28±0.66 cm² ) and 3DTEE (3.95±0.90 cm² ) were significantly underestimated when compared to the mean MDCT LVOT area (4.31±0.99 cm² ). LVOT was rather elliptical than round, with a mean eccentricity index of 1.47 (ratio of maximum to minimum LVOT diameters) assessed by MDCT. Mean TTE AVA estimated by the CE was 0.62±0.20 cm² . Substitution of 2DTTE LVOT area by 3DTEE LVOT area in the CE resulted in AVA of 0.74±0.24 cm² , while using MDCT LVOT area held an AVA of 0.80±0.24 cm² . MDCT-derived AVA was similar to MDCT planimetric AVA and allowed 24% of patients to be reclassified from severe to moderate AS.

CONCLUSIONS

2DTTE and 3DTEE underestimate LVOT area when compared to MDCT with significant impact on AVA estimation. Assessment through MDCT fusion AVA may be of incremental value in patients with discrepant severity criteria for AS.

An update on intraoperative three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography

Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was first used routinely in the operating rooms in the 1980s to facilitate surgical decision-making. Since then, TEE has evolved from the standard two-dimensional (2D) exam to include focused real-time three-dimensional (RT-3D) imaging both inside and outside the operating rooms. Improved spatial and temporal resolution due to technological advances has expedited surgical interventions in diseased valves. 3D imaging has also emerged as a crucial adjunct in percutaneous interventions for structural heart disease. With continued advancement in software, RT-3D TEE will continue to impact perioperative decisions.

Evolving new concepts in the assessment of aortic stenosis

Echocardiography has been pivotal in evaluating aortic stenosis (AS) over the past several decades. Recent experience has shown a wide spectrum in the clinical presentation of AS. A better understanding of the underlying hemodynamic principles has resulted in emergence of new subtypes of AS. New treatment modalities have also been introduced, requiring precise evaluation of aortic valve (AV) pathology for implementation of these therapies. This review will discuss new concepts and indices in the use of echocardiography in patients with AS. Specifically, we will address the hemodynamic characteristics, clinical presentation, and management of normal-flow, high-gradient; paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient; and classical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenoses.

Patient selection for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A combined clinical and multimodality imaging approach

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been validated as a new therapy for patients affected by severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who are not eligible for surgical intervention because of major contraindication or high operative risk. Patient selection for TAVR should be based not only on accurate assessment of aortic stenosis morphology, but also on several clinical and functional data. Multi-Imaging modalities should be preferred for assessing the anatomy and the dimensions of the aortic valve and annulus before TAVR. Ultrasounds represent the first line tool in evaluation of this patients giving detailed anatomic description of aortic valve complex and allowing estimating with enough reliability the hemodynamic entity of valvular stenosis. Angiography should be used to assess coronary involvement and plan a revascularization strategy before the implant. Multislice computed tomography play a central role as it can give anatomical details in order to choice the best fitting prosthesis, evaluate the morphology of the access path and detect other relevant comorbidities. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography are emergent modality helpful in aortic stenosis evaluation. The aim of this review is to give an overview on TAVR clinical and technical aspects essential for adequate selection.

Differences in Aortic Valve and Left Ventricular Parameters Related to the Severity of Myocardial Fibrosis in Patients with Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis

Objective

This study investigated the morphological and functional characteristics of the aortic valve and the left ventricular (LV) systolic functional parameters and myocardial mass related to the severity of myocardial fibrosis (MF) in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS).

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively enrolled 81 patients (48 men; mean age: 59±12 years) with severe AS who underwent transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), cardiac computed tomography (CCT), and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) within 1 month and subsequent aortic valve surgery. Degree of MF was determined on delayed contrast-enhanced CMR with visual sub-segmental analysis-based quantification and was classified into three groups (no, mild, and severe) for identifying the differences in LV function and characteristics of the aortic valve. One-way ANOVA, Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test were used to compare variables of the three groups. Univariate multinomial logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the association between the severity of MF and variables on imaging modalities.

Results

Of 81 patients, 34 (42%) had MF (mild, n = 18; severe, n = 16). Aortic valve calcium volume score on CCT, aortic valve area, LV mass index, LV end-diastolic volume index on CMR, presence of mild aortic regurgitation (AR), transaortic mean pressure gradient, and peak velocity on TTE were significantly different among the three groups and were associated with severity of MF on a univariate multinomial logistic regression analysis. Aortic valve calcium grade was different (p = 0.008) among the three groups but not associated with severity of MF (p = 0.375).

Conclusions

A multi-imaging approach shows that severe AS with MF is significantly associated with more severe calcific AS, higher LV end-diastolic volume, higher LV mass, and higher prevalence of mild AR.

Role of Echocardiography Before Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI)

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common primary valve disorder in the elderly with an increasing prevalence; transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become an accepted alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in the high risk or inoperable patient. Appropriate selection of patients for TAVI is crucial and requires a multidisciplinary approach including cardiothoracic surgeons, interventional cardiologists, anaesthetists, imaging experts and specialist nurses. Multimodality imaging including echocardiography, CT and MRI plays a pivotal role in the selection and planning process; however, echocardiography remains the primary imaging modality used for patient selection, intra-procedural guidance, post-procedural assessment and long-term follow-up. The contribution that contemporary transthoracic and transoesophageal echocardiography make to the selection and planning of TAVI is described in this article.

Role of echocardiography for catheter-based management of valvular heart disease

Catheter-based treatment of valvular heart disease, such as transvalvular aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or mitral clip procedure, has been increasingly accepted as a treatment choice for the past several years. Such new treatment options have been changing the management of patients with valvular heart disease drastically while socio-economic factors regarding their application need to be taken into consideration. The use of echocardiography, including transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), for such catheter-based treatments is essential for the success of the procedures. Severe hypotension after TAVR is a life-threatening emergency. Rapid assessment and diagnosis in the catheterization or hybrid laboratory is essential for safety and a positive outcome. Possible diagnoses in this critical situation would include severe left ventricular dysfunction due to coronary obstruction, cardiac tamponade, aortic rupture, acute severe aortic and/or mitral valve regurgitation, and hypovolemia due to bleeding. Although new types of TAVR valves reduce para-valvular aortic regurgitation (AR) significantly, it is still important to judge the severity of para-valvular AR correctly in the laboratory. As for mitral clip procedure, TEE is vital for guiding and monitoring the entire process. Accurate identification of the location and the geometry of the regurgitant orifice is necessary for proper placement of the clip. Real-time 3D TEE provides helpful en face view of the mitral valve and clip together to this end. Residual mitral regurgitation (MR) after the first clip is not uncommon. Quick and precise imaging of the residual MR (location and severity) with TEE is extremely important for the interventionist to place the second clip and possibly third clip properly. After the completion of the clip procedure, mitral valve stenosis and also iatrogenic atrial septal defect need to be checked by TEE. Echocardiography, especially TEE, is also vital for the success of other newer trans-catheter procedures such as device closure of para-valvular MR of the artificial valve, valve in valve procedure, and native valve replacement.

Reliability of Aortic Stenosis Severity Classified by 3-Dimensional Echocardiography in the Prediction of Cardiovascular Events

The estimation of aortic valve area (AVA) by Doppler echocardiography-derived left ventricular stroke volume (LVSV) remains controversial. We hypothesized that AVA estimated from directly measured LVSV by 3-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) on the continuity equation might be more accurate in classifying aortic stenosis (AS) severity. We retrospectively enrolled 265 patients with moderate-to-severe AS with preserved ejection fraction. Indexed AVA (iAVA) was calculated using LVSV derived by 2D Doppler (iAVADop), Simpson's method (iAVASimp), and 3DE (iAVA3D). During a median follow-up period of 397 days (interquartile range 197 to 706 days), 135 patients experienced the composite end point (cardiac death 9%, aortic valve replacement 24%, and cardiovascular event 27%). Estimated iAVA3D and iAVASimp were significantly smaller than iAVADop and moderately correlated with peak aortic jet velocity. Upper septal hypertrophy was a major cause of discrepancy between iAVADop and iAVA3D methods. Based on the optimal cut-off point of iAVA for predicting peak aortic jet velocity >4.0 m/s, 141 patients (53%) were classified as severe AS and 124 patients (47%) as moderate AS by iAVADop. Indexed AVA3D classified 118 patients (45%) as severe and 147 patients (55%) as moderate AS. Of the 124 patients with moderate AS by iAVADop, 22 patients (18%) were reclassified as severe AS by iAVA3D and showed poor prognosis (hazard ratio 2.7, 95% CI 1.4 to 5.0; p = 0.001). In conclusion, 3DE might be superior in classifying patients with AS compared with Doppler method, particularly in patients with upper septal hypertrophy.

The role of TTE in assessment of the patient before and following TAVI for AS

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is now accepted as a standard mode of treatment for an increasingly large population of patients with severe aortic stenosis. With the availability of this technique, echocardiographers need to be familiar with the imaging characteristics that can help to identify which patients are best suited to conventional surgery or transcatheter aortic valve implantation, and what parameters need to be measured. This review highlights the major features that should be assessed during transthoracic echocardiography before presentation of the patient to the 'Heart Team'. In addition, this review summarises the aspects to be considered on echocardiography during follow-up assessment after successful implantation of a transcatheter aortic valve.

Aortic valve area calculation in aortic stenosis by CT and Doppler echocardiography

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to verify the hypothesis that multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is superior to echocardiography for measuring the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) and calculating the aortic valve area (AVA) with regard to hemodynamic correlations and survival outcome prediction after a diagnosis of aortic stenosis (AS).

BACKGROUND

MDCT demonstrated that the LVOT is noncircular, casting doubt on the AVA measurement by 2-dimensional (2D) echocardiography.

METHODS

A total of 269 patients (76 ± 11 years of age, 61% men) with isolated calcific AS (mean gradient 44 ± 18 mm Hg; ejection fraction 58 ± 15%) underwent Doppler echocardiography and MDCT within the same episode of care. AVA was calculated by echocardiography (AVAEcho) and by MDCT (AVACT) using each technique measurement of LVOT area. In the subset of patients undergoing dynamic 4-dimensional MDCT (n = 135), AVA was calculated with the LVOT measured at 70% and 20% of the R-R interval and measured by planimetry (AVAPlani).

RESULTS

Phasic measurements of the LVOT by MDCT yielded slight differences in eccentricity and size (all p < 0.001) but with excellent AVA correlation (r = 0.92, p < 0.0001) and minimal bias (0.05 cm(2)), whereas the AVAPlani showed poor correlations with all other methods (all r values <0.58). AVACT was larger than AVAEcho (difference 0.12 ± 0.16 cm(2); p < 0.0001) but did not improve outcome prediction. Correlation gradient-AVA was slightly better with AVAEcho than AVACT (r = -0.65 with AVAEcho vs. -0.61 with AVACT; p = 0.01), and discordant gradient-AVA was not reduced. For long-term survival, after multivariable adjustment, AVAEcho or AVACT were independently predictive (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13 to 1.42; p < 0.0001 or HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.29 per 0.10 cm(2) decrease; p < 0.0001) with a similar prognostic value (p ≥ 0.80). Thresholds for excess mortality differed between methods: AVAEcho ≤1.0 cm(2) (HR: 4.67, 95% CI: 2.22 to 10.50; p < 0.0001) versus AVACT ≤1.2 cm(2) (HR: 3.16, 95% CI: 1.64 to 6.43; p = 0.005), with simple translation of spline-curve analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Head-to-head comparison of MDCT and Doppler echocardiography refutes the hypothesis of MDCT superiority for AVA calculation. AVACT is larger than AVAEcho but does not improve the correlation with transvalvular gradient, the concordance gradient-AVA, or mortality prediction compared with AVAEcho. Larger cut-point values should be used for severe AS if AVACT (<1.2 cm(2)) is measured versus AVAEcho (<1.0 cm(2)).

Intraoperative three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography for evaluating an unusual structure in the left ventricular outflow tract: a case report

Intraoperative three-dimensional (3D) transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) facilitates an understanding of the complex cardiac pathology that is not fully delineated in a two-dimensional (2D) echocardiographic evaluation, and it suggests earlier and more precise surgical planning and intraoperative decision making. In the present case, the intraoperative 2D-TEE midesophageal long-axis view indicated a significant narrowing of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) area by a band-like structure that vertically traversed the middle of the LVOT and connected to the anterior mitral leaflet base and the interventricular septum. However, additional 3D-TEE images of the LVOT and their cropped and rendered 2D images showed that web-like tissue, which presumably had grown around the patch closure from a previous atrioventricular septal defect, was obstructing the LVOT partially.

Calcification Characteristics of Low-Flow Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Low-flow low-gradient severe aortic stenosis (LFLGAS) is associated with worse outcomes. Aortic valve calcification patterns of LFLGAS as compared to non-LFLGAS have not yet been thoroughly assessed. 137 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with preprocedural multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and postprocedural transthoracic echocardiography were enrolled. Calcification characteristics were assessed by MDCT both for the total aortic valve and separately for each leaflet. 34 patients had LFLGAS and 103 non-LFLGAS. Total aortic valve calcification volume (p < 0.001), mass (p < 0.001), and density (p = 0.004) were lower in LFLGAS as compared to non-LFLGAS patients. At 30-day follow-up, mean transaortic pressure gradients and more than mild paravalvular regurgitation did not differ between groups. In conclusion, LFLGAS and non-LFLGAS express different calcification patterns which, however, did not impact on device success after TAVR.