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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |