Contrast-enhanced computed tomography assessment of aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: Non-contrast CT aortic valve calcium scoring ignores the contribution of valvular fibrosis in aortic stenosis. We assessed aortic valve calcific and non-calcific disease using contrast-enhanced CT. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of 164 patients (median age 71 (IQR 66-77) years, 78% male) with aortic stenosis (41 mild, 89 moderate, 34 severe; 7% bicuspid) who underwent echocardiography and contrast-enhanced CT as part of imaging studies. Calcific and non-calcific (fibrosis) valve tissue volumes were quantified and indexed to annulus area, using Hounsfield unit thresholds calibrated against blood pool radiodensity. The fibrocalcific ratio assessed the relative contributions of valve fibrosis and calcification. The fibrocalcific volume (sum of indexed non-calcific and calcific volumes) was compared with aortic valve peak velocity and, in a subgroup, histology and valve weight. RESULTS: Contrast-enhanced CT calcium volumes correlated with CT calcium score (r=0.80, p<0.001) and peak aortic jet velocity (r=0.55, p<0.001). The fibrocalcific ratio decreased with increasing aortic stenosis severity (mild: 1.29 (0.98-2.38), moderate: 0.87 (1.48-1.72), severe: 0.47 (0.33-0.78), p<0.001) while the fibrocalcific volume increased (mild: 109 (75-150), moderate: 191 (117-253), severe: 274 (213-344) mm3/cm2). Fibrocalcific volume correlated with ex vivo valve weight (r=0.72, p<0.001). Compared with the Agatston score, fibrocalcific volume demonstrated a better correlation with peak aortic jet velocity (r=0.59 and r=0.67, respectively), particularly in females (r=0.38 and r=0.72, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced CT assessment of aortic valve calcific and non-calcific volumes correlates with aortic stenosis severity and may be preferable to non-contrast CT when fibrosis is a significant contributor to valve obstruction.

Feasibility of Coronary 18F-Sodium Fluoride Positron-Emission Tomography Assessment With the Utilization of Previously Acquired Computed Tomography Angiography.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the feasibility of utilizing previously acquired computed tomography angiography (CTA) with subsequent positron-emission tomography (PET)-only scan for the quantitative evaluation of 18F-NaF PET coronary uptake. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-five patients (age 67.1±6.9 years; 76% males) underwent CTA (CTA1) and combined 18F-NaF PET/CTA (CTA2) imaging within 14 [10, 21] days. We fused CTA1 from visit 1 with 18F-NaF PET (PET) from visit 2 and compared visual pattern of activity, maximal standard uptake (SUVmax) values, and target to background ratio (TBR) measurements on (PET/CTA1) fused versus hybrid (PET/CTA2). On PET/CTA2, 226 coronary plaques were identified. Fifty-eight coronary segments from 28 (62%) patients had high 18F-NaF uptake (TBR >1.25), whereas 168 segments had lesions with 18F-NaF TBR ≤1.25. Uptake in all lesions was categorized identically on coregistered PET/CTA1. There was no significant difference in 18F-NaF uptake values between PET/CTA1 and PET/CTA2 (SUVmax, 1.16±0.40 versus 1.15±0.39; P=0.53; TBR, 1.10±0.45 versus 1.09±0.46; P=0.55). The intraclass correlation coefficient for SUVmax and TBR was 0.987 (95% CI, 0.983-0.991) and 0.986 (95% CI, 0.981-0.992). There was no fixed or proportional bias between PET/CTA1 and PET/CTA2 for SUVmax and TBR. Cardiac motion correction of PET scans improved reproducibility with tighter 95% limits of agreement (±0.14 for SUVmax and ±0.15 for TBR versus ±0.20 and ±0.20 on diastolic imaging; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary CTA/PET protocol with CTA first followed by PET-only allows for reliable and reproducible quantification of 18F-NaF coronary uptake. This approach may facilitate selection of high-risk patients for PET-only imaging based on results from prior CTA, providing a practical workflow for clinical application.

Comparison of International Guidelines for Assessment of Suspected Stable Angina: Insights From the PROMISE and SCOT-HEART.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the performance of major guidelines for the assessment of stable chest pain including risk-based (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology) and symptom-focused (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) strategies. BACKGROUND: Although noninvasive testing is not recommended in low-risk individuals with stable chest pain, guidelines recommend differing approaches to defining low-risk patients. METHODS: Patient-level data were obtained from the PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) and SCOT-HEART (Scottish Computed Tomography of the Heart) trials. Pre-test probability was determined and patients dichotomized into low-risk and intermediate-high-risk groups according to each guideline's definitions. The primary endpoint was obstructive coronary artery disease on coronary computed tomography angiography. Secondary endpoints were coronary revascularization at 90 days and cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction up to 3 years. RESULTS: In total, 13,773 patients were included of whom 6,160 had coronary computed tomography angiography. The proportions of patients identified as low risk by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, respectively, were 2.5%, 2.5%, and 10.0% within PROMISE, and 14.0%, 19.8%, and 38.4% within SCOT-HEART. All guidelines identified lower rates of obstructive coronary artery disease in low- versus intermediate-high-risk patients with a negative predictive value of ≥0.90. Compared with low-risk groups, all intermediate-high-risk groups had greater risks of coronary revascularization (odds ratio [OR]: 2.2 to 24.1) and clinical outcomes (OR: 1.84 to 5.8). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with risk-based guidelines, symptom-focused assessment identifies a larger group of low-risk chest pain patients potentially deriving limited benefit from noninvasive testing. (Scottish Computed Tomography of the Heart Trial [SCOT-HEART]; NCT01149590; Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain [PROMISE]; NCT01174550).

Assessment and classification of patients with myocardial injury and infarction in clinical practice.

Myocardial injury is common in patients without acute coronary syndrome, and international guidelines recommend patients with myocardial infarction are classified by aetiology. The universal definition differentiates patients with myocardial infarction due to plaque rupture (type 1) from those due to myocardial oxygen supply-demand imbalance (type 2) secondary to other acute illnesses. Patients with myocardial necrosis, but no symptoms or signs of myocardial ischaemia, are classified as acute or chronic myocardial injury. This classification has not been widely adopted in practice, because the diagnostic criteria for type 2 myocardial infarction encompass a wide range of presentations, and the implications of the diagnosis are uncertain. However, both myocardial injury and type 2 myocardial infarction are common, occurring in more than one-third of all hospitalised patients. These patients have poor short-term and long-term outcomes with two-thirds dead in 5 years. The classification of patients with myocardial infarction continues to evolve, and future guidelines are likely to recognise the importance of identifying coronary artery disease in type 2 myocardial infarction. Clinicians should consider whether coronary artery disease has contributed to myocardial injury, as selected patients are likely to benefit from further investigation and in these patients targeted secondary prevention has the potential to improve outcomes.