Back to Search
Start Over
Quantification of anatomical aortic valve area by multi-detector computed tomography: A pilot 3D-morphological modeling of the stenotic aortic valve.
- Source :
-
International journal of cardiology [Int J Cardiol] 2024 Oct 15; Vol. 413, pp. 132322. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jul 06. - Publication Year :
- 2024
-
Abstract
- Background: Aortic-valve-stenosis (AS) is a frequent degenerative valvular-disease and carries dismal outcome under-medical-treatment. Transvalvular pressure gradient reflects severity of the valve-disease but is highly dependent on flow-conditions and on other valvular/aortic characteristics. Alternatively, aortic-valve-area (AVA) represents a measure of aortic-valve lesion severity conceptually essential and practically widely-recognized but exhibits multiple-limitations.<br />Methods: We analyzed the 4D multi-detector computed tomography(MDCT) of 20 randomly selected patients with severe AS. For each-patient, we generated the 3D-model of the valve and of its calcifications, and we computed the anatomical AVA accounting for the 3D-morphology of the leaflets in three-different-ways. Finally, we compared our results vs. Doppler-based AVA <subscript>E</subscript> measurements and vs. 2D-planimetric AVA-measurements.<br />Results: 3D-reconstruction and identification of the cusps were successful in 90% of the cases. The calcification patterns where highly-variable over patients, ranging from multiple small deposits to wide and c-shaped deposits running from commissure-to-commissure. AVA <subscript>E</subscript> was 82 ± 15 mm <superscript>2</superscript> . When segmenting 18 image planes, AVA <subscript>Tight</subscript> , AVA <subscript>Proj-Ann</subscript> , AVA <subscript>Proj-Tip</subscript> and their average AVA <subscript>Ave</subscript> were equal to 80 ± 16, 88 ± 20, 93 ± 21 and 87 ± 19 mm <superscript>2</superscript> , respectively, while AVA <subscript>Plan</subscript> was equal to 143 ± 50 mm <superscript>2</superscript> . Linear-regression of the three measurements vs. AVA <subscript>E</subscript> yielded regression slopes equal to 1.26, 1.13 and 0.93 for AVA <subscript>Proj-Ann</subscript> , AVA <subscript>Proj-Tip</subscript> and AVA <subscript>Tight</subscript> , respectively. The respective Pearson-coefficients were 0.85,0.86 and 0.90. Conversely, when comparing AVA <subscript>Plan</subscript> vs. AVA <subscript>E</subscript> , linear regression yielded a slope of 1.73 and a Pearson coefficient of 0.53.<br />Conclusions: We described a new-method to obtain a set of flow-independent quantifications that complement pressure gradient measurements and combine the advantages of previously proposed methods, while bypassing the corresponding-limitations.<br />Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None.<br /> (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 1874-1754
- Volume :
- 413
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- International journal of cardiology
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 38977223
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132322