Aortic Valve Calcification Density Measured by MDCT in the Assessment of Aortic Stenosis Severity.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve calcification (AVC) indexation to the aortic annulus (AA) area measured by Doppler echocardiography (AVCdEcho) provides powerful prognostic information in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). However, the indexation by AA measured by multidetector computed tomography (AVCdCT) has never been evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare AVC, AVCdCT, and AVCdEcho with regard to hemodynamic correlations and clinical outcomes in patients with AS. METHODS: Data from 889 patients, mainly White, with calcific AS who underwent Doppler echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography within the same episode of care were retrospectively analyzed. AA was measured both by Doppler echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography. AVCdCT severity thresholds were established using receiver operating characteristic curve analyses in men and women separately. The primary end point was the occurrence of all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Correlations between gradient/velocity and AVCd were stronger (both P≤0.005) using AVCdCT (r=0.68, P<0.001 and r=0.66, P<0.001) than AVC (r=0.61, P<0.001 and r=0.60, P<0.001) or AVCdEcho (r=0.61, P<0.001 and r=0.59, P<0.001). AVCdCT thresholds for the identification of severe AS were 334 Agatston units (AU)/cm2 for women and 467 AU/cm2 for men. On a median follow-up of 6.62 (6.19-9.69) years, AVCdCT ratio was superior to AVC ratio and AVCdEcho ratio to predict all-cause mortality in multivariate analyses (hazard ratio [HR], 1.59 [95% CI, 1.26-2.00]; P<0.001 versus HR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.11-1.65]; P=0.003 versus HR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.11-1.46]; P<0.001; all likelihood test P≤0.004). AVCdCT ratio was superior to AVC ratio and AVCdEcho ratio to predict survival under medical treatment in multivariate analyses (HR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.27-1.58]; P<0.001 compared with HR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.13-2.10]; P=0.007; HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.03-1.57]; P=0.01; all likelihood test P<0.03). AVCdCT ratio predicts mortality in all subgroups of patients with AS. CONCLUSIONS: AVCdCT appears to be equivalent or superior to AVC and AVCdEcho to assess AS severity and predict all-cause mortality. Thus, it should be used to evaluate AS severity in patients with nonconclusive echocardiographic evaluations with or without low-flow status. AVCdCT thresholds of 300 AU/cm2 for women and 500 AU/cm2 for men seem to be appropriate to identify severe AS. Further studies are needed to validate these thresholds, especially in diverse populations.

Screening for transcatheter mitral valve replacement: a decision tree algorithm.

AIMS: The high frequency of screening failure for anatomical reasons in patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation (MR) is a limiting factor in the screening process for transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR). However, data on optimal patient selection are scarce. The present study aimed to develop a screening algorithm based on TMVR screening data. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 195 screenings for six different TMVR devices were performed in 94 high-risk patients with severe MR. We compared baseline echocardiographic and multislice computed tomography (MSCT) parameters between the subgroups of patients accepted (N=33) and rejected for TMVR (N=61). Reasons for screening failure were assessed, and a decision tree algorithm was statistically derived. Reasons for screening failure were small LV dimensions (30.6%), small (7.5%) or large (22.5%) annular size, potential risk of LVOT obstruction (22.0%) or mitral annulus calcification (15.6%). A four-step decision tree algorithm to assess TMVR eligibility was developed resulting in an AUC of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.89, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the first screening algorithm to assess anatomical eligibility for TMVR in patients with severe MR, based on simple MSCT criteria. Given the high rate of TMVR screening failure, this algorithm may facilitate the identification of potential TMVR candidates.