4.5 Article

The simultaneous assessment of aortic valve area and coronary artery stenosis using 16-slice multidetector-row computed tomography in patients with aortic stenosis comparison with echocardiography

期刊

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
卷 71, 期 10, 页码 1593-1598

出版社

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.71.1593

关键词

aortic stenosis; aortic valve area; coronary artery disease; 16-slice multidetector-row computed tomography; transthoracic echocardiography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Recent advancements in 16-slice multidetector-row computed tomography (16-slice MDCT) provide for non-invasive assessment of not only coronary artery disease (CAD), but also myocardial properties and the anatomy of the whole heart. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether the aortic valve area (AVA) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) assessed by 16-slice MDCT corresponds to echocardiographic assessment and to evaluate simultaneously the clinical accuracy in detecting CAD with 16-slice MDCT. Methods and Results The AVA of 29 consecutive AS patients with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and 16-slice MDCT were analyzed. The AVA was estimated by means of the continuity equation method in 2-dimensional echocardiography (DE) and the quantitative planimetric method after multi-planar reformation in 16-slice MDCT. Concomitantly, the severity of the coronary artery stenosis was assessed by 16-slice MDCT. In the present study, the AVA assessed by TTE and 16-slice MDCT was 1.34 +/- 0.32cm(2) and 1.38 +/- 0.32cm(2), respectively. Regression analysis showed that the AVA in patients with AS determined by 16-slice MDCT correlated well with those determined by 2-DE (r=0.96, p < 0.001). Significant coronary artery stenosis of more than 50% diameter reduction was present in 48% of the study population. Conclusions In patients with AS, the analysis of the severity of the AVA by 16-slice MDCT provides a feasible and accurate estimation with the concomitant evaluation of CAD.

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

4.5
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