4.2 Article

Utility of CT in the diagnosis of prosthetic valve abnormalities

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIAC SURGERY
卷 35, 期 11, 页码 3025-3033

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jocs.14966

关键词

computed tomography; echocardiography; prosthetic heart valve; prosthetic valve endocarditis; structural valve degeneration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Patients with prosthetic heart valves (PHV) are at an increased risk of endocarditis and dysfunction. Knowledge about the etiology of dysfunction and extent of endocarditis can have distinct treatment implications. Echocardiography has limitations due to PHV-related artifacts. We hypothesized that computed tomography (CT) will have incremental value over echocardiography for evaluation of PHV abnormalities with surgical findings as the reference standard. Methods Consecutive patients with PHV that had a reoperation for valve replacement, had a contrast chest CT and echocardiogram within 1 year of the reoperation, between 2010 and 2018 at a single academic center formed the study cohort. CTs and echocardiograms were assessed for potential etiologies of dysfunction (valve degeneration, pannus and thrombus); and for extent of endocarditis (vegetation, abscess, and pseudoaneurysm). Results Seventy-three patients (65.8% male, mean age 62.1 +/- 16.5 years) formed the study cohort. The indication for reoperation was PHV dysfunction in 51 and PHV endocarditis in 22. Compared to echocardiography, CT diagnosed the etiology of PHV dysfunction in 17 (33.3%) more patients (9 valve degeneration, 8 pannus). In the PHV endocarditis cohort, CT failed to detect one vegetation and one abscess, whereas echocardiography failed to detect 1 abscess. In combination, CT and echocardiography demonstrated all the vegetations and abscesses. Conclusion CT may provide superior characterization in comparison to echocardiography for the identification of the cause of prosthetic valve dysfunction, and complementary information to echocardiography for the evaluation of prosthetic valve endocarditis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据