Cargando…
Inconsistency in aortic stenosis severity between CT and echocardiography: prevalence and insights into mechanistic differences using computational fluid dynamics
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate the inconsistency of aortic stenosis (AS) severity between CT aortic valve area (CT-AVA) and echocardiographic Doppler parameters, and to investigate potential underlying mechanisms using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). METHODS: A total of 450...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6667934/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31413845 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2019-001044 |
_version_ | 1783440128230817792 |
---|---|
author | Mittal, Tarun Kumar Reichmuth, Luise Bhattacharyya, Sanjeev Jain, Manish Baltabaeva, Aigul Rahman Haley, Shelley Mirsadraee, Saeed Panoulas, Vasileios Kabir, Tito Nicol, Edward David Dalby, Miles Long, Quan |
author_facet | Mittal, Tarun Kumar Reichmuth, Luise Bhattacharyya, Sanjeev Jain, Manish Baltabaeva, Aigul Rahman Haley, Shelley Mirsadraee, Saeed Panoulas, Vasileios Kabir, Tito Nicol, Edward David Dalby, Miles Long, Quan |
author_sort | Mittal, Tarun Kumar |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate the inconsistency of aortic stenosis (AS) severity between CT aortic valve area (CT-AVA) and echocardiographic Doppler parameters, and to investigate potential underlying mechanisms using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). METHODS: A total of 450 consecutive eligible patients undergoing transcatheter AV implantation assessment underwent CT cardiac angiography (CTCA) following echocardiography. CT-AVA derived by direct planimetry and echocardiographic parameters were used to assess severity. CFD simulation was performed in 46 CTCA cases to evaluate velocity profiles. RESULTS: A CT-AVA>1 cm(2) was present in 23% of patients with echocardiographic peak velocity≥4 m/s (r=−0.33) and in 15% patients with mean Doppler gradient≥40 mm Hg (r=−0.39). Patients with inconsistent severity grading between CT and echocardiography had higher stroke volume index (43 vs 38 mL/m(2), p<0.003) and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) flow rate (235 vs 192 cm(3)/s, p<0.001). CFD simulation revealed high flow, either in isolation (p=0.01), or when associated with a skewed velocity profile (p=0.007), as the main cause for inconsistency between CT and echocardiography. CONCLUSION: Severe AS by Doppler criteria may be associated with a CT-AVA>1 cm(2) in up to a quarter of patients. CFD demonstrates that haemodynamic severity may be exaggerated on Doppler analysis due to high LVOT flow rates, with or without skewed velocity profiles, across the valve orifice. These factors should be considered before making a firm diagnosis of severe AS and evaluation with CT can be helpful. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6667934 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66679342019-08-14 Inconsistency in aortic stenosis severity between CT and echocardiography: prevalence and insights into mechanistic differences using computational fluid dynamics Mittal, Tarun Kumar Reichmuth, Luise Bhattacharyya, Sanjeev Jain, Manish Baltabaeva, Aigul Rahman Haley, Shelley Mirsadraee, Saeed Panoulas, Vasileios Kabir, Tito Nicol, Edward David Dalby, Miles Long, Quan Open Heart Valvular Heart Disease OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate the inconsistency of aortic stenosis (AS) severity between CT aortic valve area (CT-AVA) and echocardiographic Doppler parameters, and to investigate potential underlying mechanisms using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). METHODS: A total of 450 consecutive eligible patients undergoing transcatheter AV implantation assessment underwent CT cardiac angiography (CTCA) following echocardiography. CT-AVA derived by direct planimetry and echocardiographic parameters were used to assess severity. CFD simulation was performed in 46 CTCA cases to evaluate velocity profiles. RESULTS: A CT-AVA>1 cm(2) was present in 23% of patients with echocardiographic peak velocity≥4 m/s (r=−0.33) and in 15% patients with mean Doppler gradient≥40 mm Hg (r=−0.39). Patients with inconsistent severity grading between CT and echocardiography had higher stroke volume index (43 vs 38 mL/m(2), p<0.003) and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) flow rate (235 vs 192 cm(3)/s, p<0.001). CFD simulation revealed high flow, either in isolation (p=0.01), or when associated with a skewed velocity profile (p=0.007), as the main cause for inconsistency between CT and echocardiography. CONCLUSION: Severe AS by Doppler criteria may be associated with a CT-AVA>1 cm(2) in up to a quarter of patients. CFD demonstrates that haemodynamic severity may be exaggerated on Doppler analysis due to high LVOT flow rates, with or without skewed velocity profiles, across the valve orifice. These factors should be considered before making a firm diagnosis of severe AS and evaluation with CT can be helpful. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6667934/ /pubmed/31413845 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2019-001044 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Valvular Heart Disease Mittal, Tarun Kumar Reichmuth, Luise Bhattacharyya, Sanjeev Jain, Manish Baltabaeva, Aigul Rahman Haley, Shelley Mirsadraee, Saeed Panoulas, Vasileios Kabir, Tito Nicol, Edward David Dalby, Miles Long, Quan Inconsistency in aortic stenosis severity between CT and echocardiography: prevalence and insights into mechanistic differences using computational fluid dynamics |
title | Inconsistency in aortic stenosis severity between CT and echocardiography: prevalence and insights into mechanistic differences using computational fluid dynamics |
title_full | Inconsistency in aortic stenosis severity between CT and echocardiography: prevalence and insights into mechanistic differences using computational fluid dynamics |
title_fullStr | Inconsistency in aortic stenosis severity between CT and echocardiography: prevalence and insights into mechanistic differences using computational fluid dynamics |
title_full_unstemmed | Inconsistency in aortic stenosis severity between CT and echocardiography: prevalence and insights into mechanistic differences using computational fluid dynamics |
title_short | Inconsistency in aortic stenosis severity between CT and echocardiography: prevalence and insights into mechanistic differences using computational fluid dynamics |
title_sort | inconsistency in aortic stenosis severity between ct and echocardiography: prevalence and insights into mechanistic differences using computational fluid dynamics |
topic | Valvular Heart Disease |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6667934/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31413845 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2019-001044 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mittaltarunkumar inconsistencyinaorticstenosisseveritybetweenctandechocardiographyprevalenceandinsightsintomechanisticdifferencesusingcomputationalfluiddynamics AT reichmuthluise inconsistencyinaorticstenosisseveritybetweenctandechocardiographyprevalenceandinsightsintomechanisticdifferencesusingcomputationalfluiddynamics AT bhattacharyyasanjeev inconsistencyinaorticstenosisseveritybetweenctandechocardiographyprevalenceandinsightsintomechanisticdifferencesusingcomputationalfluiddynamics AT jainmanish inconsistencyinaorticstenosisseveritybetweenctandechocardiographyprevalenceandinsightsintomechanisticdifferencesusingcomputationalfluiddynamics AT baltabaevaaigul inconsistencyinaorticstenosisseveritybetweenctandechocardiographyprevalenceandinsightsintomechanisticdifferencesusingcomputationalfluiddynamics AT rahmanhaleyshelley inconsistencyinaorticstenosisseveritybetweenctandechocardiographyprevalenceandinsightsintomechanisticdifferencesusingcomputationalfluiddynamics AT mirsadraeesaeed inconsistencyinaorticstenosisseveritybetweenctandechocardiographyprevalenceandinsightsintomechanisticdifferencesusingcomputationalfluiddynamics AT panoulasvasileios inconsistencyinaorticstenosisseveritybetweenctandechocardiographyprevalenceandinsightsintomechanisticdifferencesusingcomputationalfluiddynamics AT kabirtito inconsistencyinaorticstenosisseveritybetweenctandechocardiographyprevalenceandinsightsintomechanisticdifferencesusingcomputationalfluiddynamics AT nicoledwarddavid inconsistencyinaorticstenosisseveritybetweenctandechocardiographyprevalenceandinsightsintomechanisticdifferencesusingcomputationalfluiddynamics AT dalbymiles inconsistencyinaorticstenosisseveritybetweenctandechocardiographyprevalenceandinsightsintomechanisticdifferencesusingcomputationalfluiddynamics AT longquan inconsistencyinaorticstenosisseveritybetweenctandechocardiographyprevalenceandinsightsintomechanisticdifferencesusingcomputationalfluiddynamics |