4.5 Article

Planimetry of the aortic valve orifice area: Comparison of multislice spiral computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 77, 期 3, 页码 426-435

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.08.014

关键词

Aortic valve stenosis; Computed tomography; Echocardiography; Magnetic resonance imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We sought to determine the comparability of multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for measuring the aortic valve orifice area (AVA) and grading aortic valve stenosis. Materials and methods: Twenty-seven individuals, among them 18 patients with valvular stenosis, underwent AVA planimetry by both MSCT and MRI. In the subset of patients with valvular stenosis, AVA was also calculated from transthoracic Doppler echocardiography (TTE) using the continuity equation. Results: There was excellent correlation between MSCT and MRI (r = 0.99) and limits of agreement were in an acceptable range (+/- 0.42 cm(2)) although MSCT yielded a slightly smaller mean AVA than MRI (1.57 +/- 0.83 cm(2) vs. 1.67 +/- 0.98 cm(2), p < 0.05). However, in the subset of patients with valvular stenosis, the mean AVA was not different between MSCT and MRI (1.05 +/- 0.30 cm(2) vs. 1.04 +/- 0.39 cm(2); p > 0.05). The mean AVAs on both MSCT and MRI were systematically larger than on TTE (0.88 +/- 0.28 cm(2), p < 0.001 each). Using an AVA of 1.0 cm(2) on TTE as reference, the best threshold for detecting severe-to-critical stenosis on MSCT and MRI was an AVA of 1.25 cm(2) and 1.30 cm(2), respectively, resulting in an accuracy of 96% each. Conclusion: Our study specifies recent reports on the suitability of MSCT for quantifying AVA. The data presented here suggest that certain methodical discrepancies of AVA measurements exist between MSCT, MRI and TTE. However, MSCT and MRI have shown excellent correlation in AVA planimetry and similar accuracy in grading aortic valve stenosis. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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