Cargando…

Computed tomography aortic valve calcium scoring for the assessment of aortic stenosis progression

OBJECTIVE: CT quantification of aortic valve calcification (CT-AVC) is useful in the assessment of aortic stenosis severity. Our objective was to assess its ability to track aortic stenosis progression compared with echocardiography. METHODS: Subjects were recruited in two cohorts: (1) a reproducibi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Doris, Mhairi Katrina, Jenkins, William, Robson, Philip, Pawade, Tania, Andrews, Jack Patrick, Bing, Rong, Cartlidge, Timothy, Shah, Anoop, Pickering, Alice, Williams, Michelle Claire, Fayad, Zahi A, White, Audrey, van Beek, Edwin JR, Newby, David E, Dweck, Marc R
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7719911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33020228
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2020-317125
_version_ 1783619775546523648
author Doris, Mhairi Katrina
Jenkins, William
Robson, Philip
Pawade, Tania
Andrews, Jack Patrick
Bing, Rong
Cartlidge, Timothy
Shah, Anoop
Pickering, Alice
Williams, Michelle Claire
Fayad, Zahi A
White, Audrey
van Beek, Edwin JR
Newby, David E
Dweck, Marc R
author_facet Doris, Mhairi Katrina
Jenkins, William
Robson, Philip
Pawade, Tania
Andrews, Jack Patrick
Bing, Rong
Cartlidge, Timothy
Shah, Anoop
Pickering, Alice
Williams, Michelle Claire
Fayad, Zahi A
White, Audrey
van Beek, Edwin JR
Newby, David E
Dweck, Marc R
author_sort Doris, Mhairi Katrina
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: CT quantification of aortic valve calcification (CT-AVC) is useful in the assessment of aortic stenosis severity. Our objective was to assess its ability to track aortic stenosis progression compared with echocardiography. METHODS: Subjects were recruited in two cohorts: (1) a reproducibility cohort where patients underwent repeat CT-AVC or echocardiography within 4 weeks and (2) a disease progression cohort where patients underwent annual CT-AVC and/or echocardiography. Cohen’s d-statistic (d) was computed from the ratio of annualised progression and measurement repeatability and used to estimate group sizes required to detect annualised changes in CT-AVC and echocardiography. RESULTS: A total of 33 (age 71±8) and 81 participants (age 72±8) were recruited to the reproducibility and progression cohorts, respectively. Ten CT scans (16%) were excluded from the progression cohort due to non-diagnostic image quality. Scan-rescan reproducibility was excellent for CT-AVC (limits of agreement −12% to 10 %, intraclass correlation (ICC) 0.99), peak velocity (−7% to +17%; ICC 0.92) mean gradient (−25% to 27%, ICC 0.96) and dimensionless index (−11% to +15%; ICC 0.98). Repeat measurements of aortic valve area (AVA) were less reliable (−44% to +28%, ICC 0.85). CT-AVC progressed by 152 (65–375) AU/year. For echocardiography, the median annual change in peak velocity was 0.1 (0.0–0.3) m/s/year, mean gradient 2 (0–4) mm Hg/year and AVA −0.1 (−0.2–0.0) cm(2)/year. Cohen’s d-statistic was more than double for CT-AVC (d=3.12) than each echocardiographic measure (peak velocity d=0.71; mean gradient d=0.66; AVA d=0.59, dimensionless index d=1.41). CONCLUSION: CT-AVC is reproducible and demonstrates larger increases over time normalised to measurement repeatability compared with echocardiographic measures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7719911
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77199112020-12-11 Computed tomography aortic valve calcium scoring for the assessment of aortic stenosis progression Doris, Mhairi Katrina Jenkins, William Robson, Philip Pawade, Tania Andrews, Jack Patrick Bing, Rong Cartlidge, Timothy Shah, Anoop Pickering, Alice Williams, Michelle Claire Fayad, Zahi A White, Audrey van Beek, Edwin JR Newby, David E Dweck, Marc R Heart Valvular Heart Disease OBJECTIVE: CT quantification of aortic valve calcification (CT-AVC) is useful in the assessment of aortic stenosis severity. Our objective was to assess its ability to track aortic stenosis progression compared with echocardiography. METHODS: Subjects were recruited in two cohorts: (1) a reproducibility cohort where patients underwent repeat CT-AVC or echocardiography within 4 weeks and (2) a disease progression cohort where patients underwent annual CT-AVC and/or echocardiography. Cohen’s d-statistic (d) was computed from the ratio of annualised progression and measurement repeatability and used to estimate group sizes required to detect annualised changes in CT-AVC and echocardiography. RESULTS: A total of 33 (age 71±8) and 81 participants (age 72±8) were recruited to the reproducibility and progression cohorts, respectively. Ten CT scans (16%) were excluded from the progression cohort due to non-diagnostic image quality. Scan-rescan reproducibility was excellent for CT-AVC (limits of agreement −12% to 10 %, intraclass correlation (ICC) 0.99), peak velocity (−7% to +17%; ICC 0.92) mean gradient (−25% to 27%, ICC 0.96) and dimensionless index (−11% to +15%; ICC 0.98). Repeat measurements of aortic valve area (AVA) were less reliable (−44% to +28%, ICC 0.85). CT-AVC progressed by 152 (65–375) AU/year. For echocardiography, the median annual change in peak velocity was 0.1 (0.0–0.3) m/s/year, mean gradient 2 (0–4) mm Hg/year and AVA −0.1 (−0.2–0.0) cm(2)/year. Cohen’s d-statistic was more than double for CT-AVC (d=3.12) than each echocardiographic measure (peak velocity d=0.71; mean gradient d=0.66; AVA d=0.59, dimensionless index d=1.41). CONCLUSION: CT-AVC is reproducible and demonstrates larger increases over time normalised to measurement repeatability compared with echocardiographic measures. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-12 2020-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7719911/ /pubmed/33020228 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2020-317125 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Valvular Heart Disease
Doris, Mhairi Katrina
Jenkins, William
Robson, Philip
Pawade, Tania
Andrews, Jack Patrick
Bing, Rong
Cartlidge, Timothy
Shah, Anoop
Pickering, Alice
Williams, Michelle Claire
Fayad, Zahi A
White, Audrey
van Beek, Edwin JR
Newby, David E
Dweck, Marc R
Computed tomography aortic valve calcium scoring for the assessment of aortic stenosis progression
title Computed tomography aortic valve calcium scoring for the assessment of aortic stenosis progression
title_full Computed tomography aortic valve calcium scoring for the assessment of aortic stenosis progression
title_fullStr Computed tomography aortic valve calcium scoring for the assessment of aortic stenosis progression
title_full_unstemmed Computed tomography aortic valve calcium scoring for the assessment of aortic stenosis progression
title_short Computed tomography aortic valve calcium scoring for the assessment of aortic stenosis progression
title_sort computed tomography aortic valve calcium scoring for the assessment of aortic stenosis progression
topic Valvular Heart Disease
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7719911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33020228
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2020-317125
work_keys_str_mv AT dorismhairikatrina computedtomographyaorticvalvecalciumscoringfortheassessmentofaorticstenosisprogression
AT jenkinswilliam computedtomographyaorticvalvecalciumscoringfortheassessmentofaorticstenosisprogression
AT robsonphilip computedtomographyaorticvalvecalciumscoringfortheassessmentofaorticstenosisprogression
AT pawadetania computedtomographyaorticvalvecalciumscoringfortheassessmentofaorticstenosisprogression
AT andrewsjackpatrick computedtomographyaorticvalvecalciumscoringfortheassessmentofaorticstenosisprogression
AT bingrong computedtomographyaorticvalvecalciumscoringfortheassessmentofaorticstenosisprogression
AT cartlidgetimothy computedtomographyaorticvalvecalciumscoringfortheassessmentofaorticstenosisprogression
AT shahanoop computedtomographyaorticvalvecalciumscoringfortheassessmentofaorticstenosisprogression
AT pickeringalice computedtomographyaorticvalvecalciumscoringfortheassessmentofaorticstenosisprogression
AT williamsmichelleclaire computedtomographyaorticvalvecalciumscoringfortheassessmentofaorticstenosisprogression
AT fayadzahia computedtomographyaorticvalvecalciumscoringfortheassessmentofaorticstenosisprogression
AT whiteaudrey computedtomographyaorticvalvecalciumscoringfortheassessmentofaorticstenosisprogression
AT vanbeekedwinjr computedtomographyaorticvalvecalciumscoringfortheassessmentofaorticstenosisprogression
AT newbydavide computedtomographyaorticvalvecalciumscoringfortheassessmentofaorticstenosisprogression
AT dweckmarcr computedtomographyaorticvalvecalciumscoringfortheassessmentofaorticstenosisprogression