Feasibility of a single-beat prospective ECG-gated cardiac CT for comprehensive evaluation of aortic valve disease using a 256-detector row wide-volume CT scanner: an initial experience

  • Jin Young Kim
  • Young Joo Suh
  • Suyon Chang
  • Dong Jin Im
  • Yoo Jin Hong
  • Hye-Jeong Lee
  • Jin Hur
  • Young Jin Kim
  • Byoung Wook Choi
Original Paper

Abstract

The aim of our study was to investigate the feasibility of single-beat prospective electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated cardiac computed tomography (CT) using a 256-detector row wide-volume CT scanner for functional and anatomical evaluation of the aortic valve (AV) and coronary arteries in patients with AV disease. A total of 50 patients who underwent cardiac CT scan with a wide-volume 256-detector row CT scanner for the evaluation of AV and aorta were retrospectively enrolled. Cardiac CT was performed using the prospective ECG-gated acquisition mode, and AV image quality was analyzed using a four-point grading system. Severity of aortic stenosis (AS) and aortic regurgitation (AR) were assessed by CT and correlated to that assessed by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) based on kappa statistics (κ). Estimated radiation exposure was assessed. Among 50 patients, 44 underwent cardiac CT with single-beat acquisition. The median image quality score of AV was 3.0 on the systolic phase and 4.0 on the diastolic phase. Severity of AS and AR by CT showed moderate agreement with TTE. The mean effective radiation dose was 3.75 ± 1.43 mSv for CT angiography. Using 256-detector row wide-volume CT, the single-beat cardiac CT is feasible for evaluation of AV disease and the coronary arteries, with acceptable image quality and a low radiation dose of 3.75 mSv.

Keywords

Aortic valve Multidetector computed tomography Echocardiography Aortic valve stenosis Aortic valve insufficiency 

Abbreviations

TTE

Transthoracic echocardiography

AS

Aortic stenosis

AR

Aortic regurgitation

AVA

Aortic valve area

ROA

Regurgitant orifice area

DLP

Dose-length product

mSv

Millisieverts

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10554_2017_1223_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Sawaya F, Liff D, Stewart J, Lerakis S, Babaliaros V (2012) Aortic stenosis: a contemporary review. Am J Med Sci 343(6):490–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumgartner H, Hung J, Bermejo J et al (2009) Echocardiographic assessment of valve stenosis: EAE/ASE recommendations for clinical practice. Eur J Echocardiogr 10(1):1–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weinreb JC, Larson PA, Woodard PK et al (2005) American College of Radiology clinical statement on noninvasive cardiac imaging. Radiology 235(3):723–727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Achenbach S, Delgado V, Hausleiter J, Schoenhagen P, Min JK, Leipsic JA (2012) SCCT expert consensus document on computed tomography imaging before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 6(6):366–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Opolski MP, Staruch AD, Jakubczyk M et al (2016) CT angiography for the detection of coronary artery stenoses in patients referred for cardiac valve surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.09.028 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pouleur AC, le Polain de Waroux JB, Pasquet A, Vanoverschelde JL, Gerber BL (2007) Aortic valve area assessment: multidetector CT compared with cine MR imaging and transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography. Radiology 244(3):745–754CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alkadhi H, Desbiolles L, Husmann L et al (2007) Aortic regurgitation: assessment with 64-section CT. Radiology 245(1):111–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jeon MH, Choe YH, Cho SJ, Park SW, Park PW, Oh JK (2010) Planimetric measurement of the regurgitant orifice area using multidetector CT for aortic regurgitation: a comparison with the use of echocardiography. Korean J Radiol 11(2):169–177CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clavel MA, Malouf J, Messika-Zeitoun D, Araoz PA, Michelena HI, Enriquez-Sarano M (2015) Aortic valve area calculation in aortic stenosis by CT and Doppler echocardiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 8(3):248–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hirai N, Horiguchi J, Fujioka C et al (2008) Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated 64-detector coronary CT angiography: assessment of image quality, stenosis, and radiation dose. Radiology 248(2):424–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Einstein AJ, Elliston CD, Arai AE et al (2010) Radiation dose from single-heartbeat coronary CT angiography performed with a 320–detector row volume scanner. Radiology 254(3):698–706CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Qin J, Liu LY, Fang Y et al (2012) 320-detector CT coronary angiography with prospective and retrospective electrocardiogram gating in a single heartbeat: comparison of image quality and radiation dose. Br J Radiol 85(1015):945–951CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM et al (2008) Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CT of the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Radiology 248(2):431–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Choo WS, Steeds RP (2011) Cardiac imaging in valvular heart disease. Br J Radiol 84(Spec No 3):S245–S257CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lancellotti P, Tribouilloy C, Hagendorff A et al (2010) European Association of Echocardiography recommendations for the assessment of valvular regurgitation. Part 1: aortic and pulmonary regurgitation (native valve disease). Eur J Echocardiogr 11(3):223–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Halliburton SS, Abbara S, Chen MY et al (2011) SCCT guidelines on radiation dose and dose-optimization strategies in cardiovascular CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5(4):198–224CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Halpern EJ, Mallya R, Sewell M, Shulman M, Zwas DR (2009) Differences in aortic valve area measured with CT planimetry and echocardiography (continuity equation) are related to divergent estimates of left ventricular outflow tract area. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192(6):1668–1673CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mullany CJ, Elveback LR, Frye RL et al (1987) Coronary artery disease and its management: influence on survival in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 10(1):66–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thalji NM, Suri RM, Daly RC et al (2015) The prognostic impact of concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting during aortic valve surgery: implications for revascularization in the transcatheter era. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 149(2):451–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kurlansky PA, Williams DB, Traad EA, Carrillo RG, Zucker M, Ebra G (2007) Surgical management of aortic valve disease in elderly patients with and without coronary artery disease: influence on quality of life. J Cardiovasc Surg 48(2):215–226Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Han K, Yang DH, Shin SY et al (2015) Subprosthetic pannus after aortic valve replacement surgery: cardiac CT findings and clinical features. Radiology 276(3):724–731CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Latif MA, Sanchez FW, Sayegh K et al (2016) Volumetric single-beat coronary computed tomography angiography: relationship of image quality, heart rate, and body mass index. Initial patient experience with a new computed tomography scanner. J Comput Assist Tomogr 40(5):763–772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Soon J, Sulaiman N, Park JK et al (2016) The effect of a whole heart motion-correction algorithm on CT image quality and measurement reproducibility in Pre-TAVR aortic annulus evaluation. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 10(5):386–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bennett CJ, Maleszewski JJ, Araoz PA (2012) CT and MR imaging of the aortic valve: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 32(5):1399–1420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jin Young Kim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Young Joo Suh
    • 1
    • 3
  • Suyon Chang
    • 1
  • Dong Jin Im
    • 1
  • Yoo Jin Hong
    • 1
  • Hye-Jeong Lee
    • 1
  • Jin Hur
    • 1
  • Young Jin Kim
    • 1
  • Byoung Wook Choi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologySeverance Hospital, Yonsei University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Dongsan Medical CenterKeimyung University College of MedicineDaeguSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of RadiologySeoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations