Performance of Computed Tomographic Angiography-Based Aortic Valve Area for Assessment of Aortic Stenosis.

Background A total of 40% of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) have low-gradient AS, raising uncertainty about AS severity. Aortic valve calcification, measured by computed tomography (CT), is guideline-endorsed to aid in such cases. The performance of different CT-derived aortic valve areas (AVAs) is less well studied. Methods and Results Consecutive adult patients with presumed moderate and severe AS based on echocardiography (AVA measured by continuity equation on echocardiography <1.5 cm2) who underwent cardiac CT were identified retrospectively. AVAs, measured by direct planimetry on CT (AVACT) and by a hybrid approach (AVA measured in a hybrid manner with echocardiography and CT [AVAHybrid]), were measured. Sex-specific aortic valve calcification thresholds (≥1200 Agatston units in women and ≥2000 Agatston units in men) were applied to adjudicate severe or nonsevere AS. A total of 215 patients (38.0% women; mean±SD age, 78±8 years) were included: normal flow, 59.5%; and low flow, 40.5%. Among the different thresholds for AVACT and AVAHybrid, diagnostic performance was the best for AVACT <1.2 cm2 (sensitivity, 85%; specificity, 26%; and accuracy, 72%), with no significant difference by flow status. The percentage of patients with correctly classified AS severity (correctly classified severe AS+correctly classified moderate AS) was as follows; AVA measured by continuity equation on echocardiography <1.0 cm2, 77%; AVACT <1.2 cm2, 73%; AVACT <1.0 cm2, 58%; AVAHybrid <1.2 cm2, 59%; and AVAHybrid <1.0 cm2, 45%. AVACT cut points of 1.52 cm2 for normal flow and 1.56 cm2 for low flow, provided 95% specificity for excluding severe AS. Conclusions CT-derived AVAs have poor discrimination for AS severity. Using an AVACT <1.2-cm2 threshold to define severe AS can produce significant error. Larger AVACT thresholds improve specificity.

Prognostic Role of Paravalvular Spread on Computed Tomography in Suspected Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis.

We aimed to assess the prognostic value of computed tomography assessment of paravalvular spread in suspected prosthetic valve endocarditis.

Prognostic impact of identifying etiology of prosthetic valve dysfunction with CT.

BACKGROUND: In patients with prosthetic heart valves (PHV), there are distinct treatment implications based on prosthetic valve dysfunction (PVD) etiology. We investigated whether evaluation for PVD etiology on computed tomography (CT) has prognostic value for adverse clinical outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients with suspected PVD that had a clinically indicated contrast chest CT and echocardiogram done within 1 year of each other were identified retrospectively from the Prosthetic Heart Valve CT Registry at the University of Minnesota. CTs and echocardiograms were assessed for potential PVD etiologies of pannus, structural valve degeneration (SVD) and thrombus, as per standard guidelines. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed to assess association with a composite outcome of reoperation and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: 132 patients (51.5% male, mean age 62.1 â€‹± â€‹19.3 years) with suspected PVD were included. There were 97 tissue valves, 31 mechanical valves and 4 transcatheter valves. The location of the valve was as follows: 72 aortic, 45 mitral, 8 tricuspid, and 7 pulmonic. A PVD etiology was diagnosed on CT in 80 (60.6%) patients, and on echocardiography in 45 (34.1%) patients, largely driven by a diagnosis of SVD on both modalities. Significant univariate predictors of the composite outcome included CT diagnosis of SVD (P â€‹< â€‹0.001), echocardiography diagnosis of SVD (P â€‹< â€‹0.001), degree of prosthetic stenosis (P â€‹< â€‹0.001) and degree of prosthetic regurgitation (P â€‹< â€‹0.001). On multivariable analyses adjusted for age, sex, left ventricular function, degree of prosthetic stenosis and degree of prosthetic regurgitation, CT diagnosis of SVD was significantly associated with the composite outcome (HR: 1.79, 1.09-2.95) whereas echocardiography diagnosis of SVD was not (HR: 1.56, 0.98-2.46). CONCLUSION: In patients with suspected PVD, CT assessment of SVD had prognostic significance for hard outcomes. CT should be considered in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected PVD.

Impact of 2016 SCCT/STR guidelines for coronary artery calcium scoring of noncardiac chest CT scans on lung cancer screening CT reporting.

The 2016 SCCT/STR guideline for coronary artery calcification (CAC) scoring on non-cardiac chest CT (NCCT) scans explicitly calls for the reporting of CAC. Whether the publication of the 2016 SCCT/STR guideline has had any impact on CAC reporting in lung cancer screening (LCS) scans has not been investigated. Consecutive patients with a LCS scan were identified from the University of Minnesota LCS registry and evaluated for CAC reporting in 3 separate cohorts: 6 months before, 6 months after, and 1 year after the publication of the 2016 SCCT/STR guideline. Scans were evaluated for CAC and quantified using the Agatston method. CAC reporting, downstream testing and initiation of preventive therapy were assessed. Among 614 patients (50% male, mean age 64.1 ± 6.0 years), CAC was present in 460 (74.9%) with a median Agatston score of 62 (IQR 0, 230). Of these, 196 (31.9%) had a CAC score of 1-100, 125 (20.4%) had 101-300, and 118 (19.2%) had > 300. Overall, CAC was reported in 325 (70.7%) patients with CAC present. CAC reporting relative to publication of the 2016 SCCT/STR guideline was as follows: 6 months prior-74.1%, 6 months after-64.6%, and 1 year after-77.5%. In the 308 patients with a new diagnosis of sub-clinical CAD based on CAC presence, 6 (1.9%) patients were referred to cardiology, and 15 (4.9%) patients underwent testing for obstructive CAD. Only 6 (1.9%) and 9 (2.9%) patients were newly started on aspirin and statin respectively. CAC detected incidentally on lung cancer screening CT scans is prevalent, and rarely acted upon clinically. CAC reporting is fairly high, and publication of the 2016 SCCT/STR guideline for CAC scoring on NCCT scans did not have any significant impact on CAC reporting.