Assessment of mitral valve stenosis by helical MDCT: comparison with transthoracic doppler echocardiography and cardiac catheterization.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the precision of helical MDCT for the quantification of mitral valve stenosis (MVS) compared with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiac catheterization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 28 patients with MVS of differing severity underwent an ECG-gated contrast-enhanced MDCT scan. The mitral valve area (MVA) was determined planimetrically by MDCT and was compared with Doppler TTE using the pressure half-time method and with cardiac catheterization using the Gorlin formula. RESULTS: Planimetry of the MVA with MDCT was feasible in all cases. The MVA on MDCT (1.88 ± 0.76 cm(2)) was significantly larger than that seen with TTE (1.74 ± 0.75 cm(2); p = 0.039) or cardiac catheterization (1.72 ± 0.67 cm(2); p = 0.037). The correlation between MDCT and TTE (r = 0.90; p < 0.001; limits of agreement, ± 0.65 cm(2)) and that between MDCT and cardiac catheterization (r = 0.86; p < 0.001; limits of agreement, ± 0.76 cm(2)) were good and similar to the correlation between TTE and cardiac catheterization (r = 0.88; p < 0.001; limits of agreement, ± 0.71 cm(2)). The best cutoff level for detecting moderate-to-severe stenosis at MDCT was an MVA of 1.70 cm(2), resulting in a sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 73%, 88%, 82%, 80%, and 83%, respectively, with two false-positive and three false-negative results. CONCLUSION: The MVA planimetrically determined by MDCT is systematically larger than those calculated by Doppler TTE and cardiac catheterization. However, because of a good correlation between methods and adjustment for the systematic bias, MDCT may allow reliable quantification of MVS and effectual discrimination among severity grades, although discrepancies between methods remain in individual cases.

Planimetry of the aortic valve orifice area: comparison of multislice spiral computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the comparability of multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for measuring the aortic valve orifice area (AVA) and grading aortic valve stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven individuals, among them 18 patients with valvular stenosis, underwent AVA planimetry by both MSCT and MRI. In the subset of patients with valvular stenosis, AVA was also calculated from transthoracic Doppler echocardiography (TTE) using the continuity equation. RESULTS: There was excellent correlation between MSCT and MRI (r = 0.99) and limits of agreement were in an acceptable range (± 0.42 cm(2)) although MSCT yielded a slightly smaller mean AVA than MRI (1.57 ± 0.83 cm(2) vs. 1.67 ± 0.98 cm(2), p < 0.05). However, in the subset of patients with valvular stenosis, the mean AVA was not different between MSCT and MRI (1.05 ± 0.30 cm(2) vs. 1.04 ± 0.39 cm(2); p > 0.05). The mean AVAs on both MSCT and MRI were systematically larger than on TTE (0.88 ± 0.28 cm(2), p < 0.001 each). Using an AVA of 1.0 cm(2) on TTE as reference, the best threshold for detecting severe-to-critical stenosis on MSCT and MRI was an AVA of 1.25 cm(2) and 1.30 cm(2), respectively, resulting in an accuracy of 96% each. CONCLUSION: Our study specifies recent reports on the suitability of MSCT for quantifying AVA. The data presented here suggest that certain methodical discrepancies of AVA measurements exist between MSCT, MRI and TTE. However, MSCT and MRI have shown excellent correlation in AVA planimetry and similar accuracy in grading aortic valve stenosis.

Grading of aortic valve stenosis at 64-slice spiral computed tomography: comparison with transthoracic echocardiography and calibration against cardiac catheterization.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the accuracy of multislice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) for assessing of aortic valve stenosis and to establish threshold values of the planimetric aortic valve orifice area (AVA) that best separate between different grades of stenosis severity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 202 patients (among them 160 patients with aortic valve stenosis) underwent MSCT, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiac catheterization (CATH). Planimetric AVA measurements at MSCT were compared with calculations based on Doppler flow velocity measurements by TTE (using the continuity equation) and pressure gradient measurements by CATH (using the Gorlin formula). RESULTS: Series of AVA measurements correlated well between MSCT and TTE (r = 0.86) and between MSCT and CATH (r = 0.90). However, AVA at MSCT (0.98 +/- 0.47 cm) was significantly larger than AVA at TTE (0.81 +/- 0.36 cm; P < 0.05) and CATH (0.80 +/- 0.39 cm; P < 0.05). For severity grades 0 through IV the AVAs at MSCT were 2.69 +/- 0.75, 1.86 +/- 0.30, 1.48 +/- 0.17, 0.95 +/- 0.20, and 0.68 +/- 0.20 cm, respectively. For separating, the 5 severity grades optimal thresholds at MSCT were 2.1, 1.6, 1.2, and 0.9 cm. Using these adjusted thresholds there was perfect agreement in classification between MSCT and CATH in 156 (77%), but a mismatch by 1 grade in 43 (21.5%) and 2 grades in 3 (1.5%) patients (kappaw = 0.86). CONCLUSION: Planimetric AVA measurements on MSCT allows for an accurate grading of aortic valve stenosis severity. However, AVA measurements on MSCT are usually larger than measurements on TTE and CATH. Consequently, the thresholds for discriminating between different severity grades have to be adjusted in MSCT.