Demonstration of left ventricular outflow tract eccentricity by 64-slice multi-detector CT

Doddamani, Sanjay; Grushko, Michael; Makaryus, Amgad N.; Jain, Vineet R.; Bello, Ricardo; Friedman, Mark A.; Ostfeld, Robert J.; Malhotra, Divya; Boxt, Lawrence M.; Haramati, Linda B.; Spevack, Daniel M.

doi:10.1007/s10554-008-9362-9

Cited by 124 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is possible that a 3-dimensional echocardiographic or computed tomography assessment of the outflow tract dimensions or invasive hemodynamic assessment could lead to different values and conclusions. 5,29,30 The velocity-time integral assessed by LV outflow tract flow may also be directly affected by the presence of aortic regurgitation and indirectly by mitral regurgitation, both of which differed in prevalence at baseline between LF and NF subjects. Nonetheless, neither aortic nor mitral regurgitation had an independent predictive value for subsequent mortality.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of Mortality and Outcomes of Therapy in Low-Flow Severe Aortic Stenosis

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-The prognosis and treatment of patients with low-flow (LF) severe aortic stenosis are controversial. Methods and Results-The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial randomized patients with severe aortic stenosis to medical management versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR; inoperable cohort) and surgical aortic valve replacement versus TAVR (high-risk cohort). Among 971 patients with evaluable echocardiograms (92%), LF (stroke volume index ≤35 mL/m 2 ) was observed in 530 (55%); LF and low ejection fraction (<50%) in 225 (23%); and LF, low ejection fraction, and low mean gradient (<40 mm Hg) in 147 (15%). Two-year mortality was significantly higher in patients with LF compared with those with normal stroke volume index (47% versus 34%; hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.89; P=0.006). In the inoperable cohort, patients with LF had higher mortality than those with normal flow, but both groups improved with TAVR (46% versus 76% with LF and 38% versus 53% with normal flow; P<0.001). In the high-risk cohort, there was no difference between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement. In patients with paradoxical LF and low gradient (preserved ejection fraction), TAVR reduced 1-year mortality from 66% to 35% (hazard ratio, 0.38; P=0.02). LF was an independent predictor of mortality in all patient cohorts (hazard ratio, ≈1.5), whereas ejection fraction and gradient were not. Conclusions-LF

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of Mortality and Outcomes of Therapy in Low-Flow Severe Aortic Stenosis

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5 These inconsistencies have been attributed to stroke volume variability, despite normally appearing left ventricular (LV) function, small LV size, diastolic dysfunction, chronic afterload changes from hypertension, and underestimation of AVA secondary to the erroneous assumption that the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) is a circle rather than an ellipse. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Inconsistent AS grading is problematic because misinterpretation of grading parameters may delay surgical intervention and negatively affect patients. [1][2][3] AS severity is defined by the following echocardiographic parameters: peak velocity, ΔP m , AVA by continuity equation, dimensionless index, and indexed AVA (Table 1).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Discordance in Grading Methods of Aortic Stenosis by Pre-Cardiopulmonary Bypass Transesophageal Echocardiography

Whitener

McKenzie

Akushevich

et al. 2016

Anesthesia &Amp; Analgesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discordance in Grading Aortic Stenosis by Pre-CPB TEE aortic valve. For this reason, AVA calculation is prone to error compared with a ΔP m measurement.Although inconsistencies for grading AS with AVA and ΔP m are well known for preoperative TTE, they are routinely used for grading AS in the pre-cardiopulmonary bypass (pre-CPB) context. In this study, we investigate the frequency of discordance between grading AS with ΔP m measurements and AVA calculations during pre-CPB transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) to provide insight into their reliability for pre-CPB assessment of AS severity. Conventional AS severity cutoffs were derived from TTE studies performed in awake, spontaneously breathing patients.14-18 However, cardiac anesthesiologists perform pre-CPB TEE in anesthetized patients receiving positive pressure ventilation. Because general anesthesia and positive pressure ventilation may influence cardiac loading conditions, we hypothesized that grading discordance by pre-CPB TEE would be higher than previously reported for TTE by others. METHODSWe obtained Duke University IRB approval, which granted waiver of consent to perform a retrospective database study for information collected between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2012. This study was an investigator-initiated, single-center, retrospective review of the Duke University, Department of Anesthesiology perioperative echocardiography-reporting database. This database includes all adult patients who have undergone cardiac surgery at Duke University Medical Center and had a TEE report generated electronically since January 1, 2000. The Duke Health Information Technologies Solutions (DHTS) Perioperative Development Group (PDG) maintains the reporting system. A cardiothoracic anesthesiology fellow, attending, or both, generated TEE reports as part of a dedicated perioperative echocardiography training program. All imaging and reports were subsequently reviewed offline by an independent cardiothoracic anesthesiologist to confirm the accuracy of the report. Subject SelectionWe reviewed all patients in the database, who underwent AVR with or without coronary artery bypass grafting from January 1, 2000, until December 31, 2012. Patients were included if the echocardiographer reported both a pre-CPB ΔP m and an AVA. Patients were excluded if they had emergency surgery or repeat sternotomy. Patients were also excluded if they had an ejection fraction <55%, moderate or severe mitral regurgitation (MR), or severe aortic insufficiency (AI). Definitions of Variables Statistical AnalysisIRB approval was obtained in early 2013; therefore, we collected retrospective data as far as possible, up through December 31, 2012. Pre-CPB TEE ΔP m and AVA values were extracted for all patients meeting clinical inclusion criteria. These values were grouped according to AS severity (mild, moderate, and severe) and compared for discordance rates based on current grading guidelines for ΔP m and AVA. Values were considered "discordant" if there was disagreement between severities bas...

show abstract

“…5,6,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Severe calcification, 9,13,14) three dimension structure of the aortic annulus, 9,13) and so on has been proposed concerning the reason why the echocardiography underestimated the aortic annulus diameter. Recently, the elliptical shape of the aortic annulus [4][5][6]13,[15][16][17]19,20) or left ventricular outflow tract has been pointed out, and it may be one of the reasons for the underestimation of the aortic annulus by TTE, however, there may be others. Schultz CJ 4) or Tzikas A 19) advocated that the measured distance using echocardiography might decline to the true diameter.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aortic Annulus Diameter Measurement: What Is the Best Modality?

Yano

Nakamura

Nagahama

et al. 2012

ATCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to clarify the most suitable method to measure the aortic annulus diameter. Patients and Methods: Fifty-five patients, who had undergone aortic valve replacement at Miyazaki University Hospital between April 2008 and May 2011, were included in this study. The maximum diameter of the sizing tool that could be inserted into the left ventricle through the annulus had been predicted, based on the diameter measured by each modality. Agreement with surgery and each imaging modality, namely transthoracic echocardiography, multidetector computed tomography and contrast angiography, were compared using Bland-Altman analysis. Results: The predicted aortic annulus diameter, based on the diameter measured by transthoracic echocardiography, multidetector computed tomography and contrast angiography, was 20.3 ± 2.50, 23.9 ± 3.19, and 23.5 ± 3.55 mm, respectively, whereas, the diameter measured at surgery was 23.7 ± 2.99 mm. Predicted aortic annulus diameter measured by multidetector computed tomography best agreed with that measured at surgery. Conclusion: We conclude that the aortic annulus diameter, measured by multidetector computed tomography, is the best modality to measure the aortic annulus diameter.

show abstract

Demonstration of left ventricular outflow tract eccentricity by 64-slice multi-detector CT

Cited by 124 publications

References 21 publications

Predictors of Mortality and Outcomes of Therapy in Low-Flow Severe Aortic Stenosis

Predictors of Mortality and Outcomes of Therapy in Low-Flow Severe Aortic Stenosis

Discordance in Grading Methods of Aortic Stenosis by Pre-Cardiopulmonary Bypass Transesophageal Echocardiography

Aortic Annulus Diameter Measurement: What Is the Best Modality?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About