Background: Aortic-valve-stenosis (AS) is a frequent degenerative valvular-disease and carries dismal outcome under-medical-treatment. Transvalvular pressure gradient reflects severity of the valve-disease but is highly dependent on flow-conditions and on other valvular/aortic characteristics. Alternatively, aortic-valve-area (AVA) represents a measure of aortic-valve lesion severity conceptually essential and practically widely-recognized but exhibits multiple-limitations. Methods: We analyzed the 4D multi-detector computed tomography(MDCT) of 20 randomly selected patients with severe AS. For each-patient, we generated the 3D-model of the valve and of its calcifications, and we computed the anatomical AVA accounting for the 3D-morphology of the leaflets in three-different-ways. Finally, we compared our results vs. Doppler-based AVA E measurements and vs. 2D-planimetric AVA-measurements. Results: 3D-reconstruction and identification of the cusps were successful in 90% of the cases. The calcification patterns where highly-variable over patients, ranging from multiple small deposits to wide and c-shaped deposits running from commissure-to-commissure. AVA E was 82 +/- 15 mm 2 . When segmenting 18 image planes, AVA Tight , AVA Proj-Ann , AVA Proj-Tip and their average AVA Ave were equal to 80 +/- 16, 88 +/- 20, 93 +/- 21 and 87 +/- 19 mm 2 , respectively, while AVA Plan was equal to 143 +/- 50 mm 2 . Linear-regression of the three measurements vs. AVA E yielded regression slopes equal to 1.26, 1.13 and 0.93 for AVA Proj-Ann , AVA Proj-Tip and AVA Tight , respectively. The respective Pearson-coefficients were 0.85,0.86 and 0.90. Conversely, when comparing AVA Plan vs. AVA E , linear regression yielded a slope of 1.73 and a Pearson coefficient of 0.53. Conclusions: We described a new-method to obtain a set of flow-independent quantifications that complement pressure gradient measurements and combine the advantages of previously proposed methods, while bypassing the corresponding-limitations.
Quantification of anatomical aortic valve area by multi-detector computed tomography: A pilot 3D-morphological modeling of the stenotic aortic valve
Pappalardo, Omar;Redaelli, Alberto;Onorati, Francesco;Votta, Emiliano;
2024-01-01
Abstract
Background: Aortic-valve-stenosis (AS) is a frequent degenerative valvular-disease and carries dismal outcome under-medical-treatment. Transvalvular pressure gradient reflects severity of the valve-disease but is highly dependent on flow-conditions and on other valvular/aortic characteristics. Alternatively, aortic-valve-area (AVA) represents a measure of aortic-valve lesion severity conceptually essential and practically widely-recognized but exhibits multiple-limitations. Methods: We analyzed the 4D multi-detector computed tomography(MDCT) of 20 randomly selected patients with severe AS. For each-patient, we generated the 3D-model of the valve and of its calcifications, and we computed the anatomical AVA accounting for the 3D-morphology of the leaflets in three-different-ways. Finally, we compared our results vs. Doppler-based AVA E measurements and vs. 2D-planimetric AVA-measurements. Results: 3D-reconstruction and identification of the cusps were successful in 90% of the cases. The calcification patterns where highly-variable over patients, ranging from multiple small deposits to wide and c-shaped deposits running from commissure-to-commissure. AVA E was 82 +/- 15 mm 2 . When segmenting 18 image planes, AVA Tight , AVA Proj-Ann , AVA Proj-Tip and their average AVA Ave were equal to 80 +/- 16, 88 +/- 20, 93 +/- 21 and 87 +/- 19 mm 2 , respectively, while AVA Plan was equal to 143 +/- 50 mm 2 . Linear-regression of the three measurements vs. AVA E yielded regression slopes equal to 1.26, 1.13 and 0.93 for AVA Proj-Ann , AVA Proj-Tip and AVA Tight , respectively. The respective Pearson-coefficients were 0.85,0.86 and 0.90. Conversely, when comparing AVA Plan vs. AVA E , linear regression yielded a slope of 1.73 and a Pearson coefficient of 0.53. Conclusions: We described a new-method to obtain a set of flow-independent quantifications that complement pressure gradient measurements and combine the advantages of previously proposed methods, while bypassing the corresponding-limitations.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
2024-Pappalardo-AVA-from-CT.pdf
Accesso riservato
:
Publisher’s version
Dimensione
2.27 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
2.27 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.