Current Cardiology Reports

, 15:320 | Cite as

Imaging of Inflammation and Calcification in Aortic Stenosis

  • Marc R. Dweck
  • Nikhil V. Joshi
  • James H. F. Rudd
  • David E. Newby
Cardiac PET, CT, and MRI (S Achenbach, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Cardiac PET, CT, and MRI

Abstract

Aortic stenosis is a common clinical condition that is set to increase in prevalence with an ageing population. However, reliable methods for predicting disease progression and effective medical therapies are lacking. Inflammation and calcification are believed to have a key role but until recently the relative contributions of these processes at the different stages of the disease process were unknown. Recent studies have suggested that combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) is a feasible and reproducible method for measuring the degree of inflammation and calcification in the valves of patients with aortic stenosis. For the first time this provides us with a potential method of measuring disease activity, which might then allow prediction of progression and act as a surrogate endpoint in studies of novel therapies. In this review, we will examine the basis for PET/CT scanning and discuss the studies that have investigated its use in aortic stenosis. We will cover the work that is still required in order to validate this technique and how it might impact on future clinical research and practice. Finally, we will examine alternative imaging methods that might also provide insight in to the underlying pathogenesis of this important and common clinical condition.

Keywords

Aortic stenosis Positron emission tomography Computed tomography Inflammation Calcification 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work and MRD were supported by a fellowship grant from the British Heart Foundation (FS/10/026). N.V.J. is supported by Chief Scientist Office (ETM/160). The work of J.H.F.R. is supported in part by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. DEN is supported by the British Heart Foundation (CH/09/002).

Disclosures

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Cowell SJ, Newby DE, Prescott RJ, et al. A randomized trial of intensive lipid-lowering therapy in calcific aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2389–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chan KL, Teo K, Dumesnil JG, Ni A, Tam J. Effect of Lipid lowering with rosuvastatin on progression of aortic stenosis: results of the aortic stenosis progression observation: measuring effects of rosuvastatin (ASTRONOMER) trial. Circulation. 2010;121:306–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rossebo AB, Pedersen TR, Boman K, et al. Intensive lipid lowering with simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1343–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dweck MR, Boon NA, Newby DE. Calcific aortic stenosis: a disease of the valve and myocardium. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1854–63.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    O'Brien KD, Reichenbach DD, Marcovina SM, Kuusisto J, Alpers CE, Otto CM. Apolipoproteins B, (a), and E accumulate in the morphologically early lesion of 'degenerative' valvular aortic stenosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1996;16:523–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Olsson M, Thyberg J, Nilsson J. Presence of oxidized low density lipoprotein in nonrheumatic stenotic aortic valves. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1999;19:1218–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghaisas NK, Foley JB, O'Briain DS, Crean P, Kelleher D, Walsh M. Adhesion molecules in nonrheumatic aortic valve disease: endothelial expression, serum levels and effects of valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:2257–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jian B, Narula N, Li QY, Mohler III ER, Levy RJ. Progression of aortic valve stenosis: TGF-beta1 is present in calcified aortic valve cusps and promotes aortic valve interstitial cell calcification via apoptosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75:457–65. discussion 465–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu AC, Joag VR, Gotlieb AI. The emerging role of valve interstitial cell phenotypes in regulating heart valve pathobiology. Am J Pathol. 2007;171:1407–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caira FC, Stock SR, Gleason TG, et al. Human degenerative valve disease is associated with up-regulation of low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5 receptor-mediated bone formation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1707–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mohler 3rd ER, Gannon F, Reynolds C, Zimmerman R, Keane MG, Kaplan FS. Bone formation and inflammation in cardiac valves. Circulation. 2001;103:1522–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin EC, Alavi A. PET and PET/CT. A clinical guide. New York; Stuttgart: Thieme; 2005.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    • Rudd JH, Narula J, Strauss HW, et al. Imaging atherosclerotic plaque inflammation by fluorodeoxyglucose with positron emission tomography: ready for prime time? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2527–35. Review article summarizing the literature investigating vascular 18F-FDG activity as a marker of plaque inflammation. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rudd JH, Warburton EA, Fryer TD, et al. Imaging atherosclerotic plaque inflammation with [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Circulation. 2002;105:2708–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tawakol A, Migrino RQ, Bashian GG, et al. In vivo 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging provides a noninvasive measure of carotid plaque inflammation in patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1818–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tahara N, Kai H, Ishibashi M, et al. Simvastatin attenuates plaque inflammation: evaluation by fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1825–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paulmier B, Duet M, Khayat R, et al. Arterial wall uptake of fluorodeoxyglucose on PET imaging in stable cancer disease patients indicates higher risk for cardiovascular events. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:209–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rominger A, Saam T, Wolpers S, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT identifies patients at risk for future vascular events in an otherwise asymptomatic cohort with neoplastic disease. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1611–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Muntendam P, McCall C, Sanz J, Falk E, Fuster V. The BioImage Study: novel approaches to risk assessment in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease--study design and objectives. Am Heart J. 2010;160:49–57 e1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    •• Dweck MR, Jones C, Joshi NV, et al. Assessment of valvular calcification and inflammation by positron emission tomography in patients with aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2012;125:76–86. This was the first prospective study to examine inflammation and calcification in aortic stenosis using PET/CT. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    • Marincheva-Savcheva G, Subramanian S, Qadir S, et al. Imaging of the aortic valve using fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography increased valvular fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:2507–15. A retrospective study of cancer patients demonstrating for the first time increased 18F-FDG activity in the valves of patients with aortic stenosis compared with those with normal valves. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheng VY, Slomka PJ, Ahlen M, Thomson LE, Waxman AD, Berman DS. Impact of carbohydrate restriction with and without fatty acid loading on myocardial (18)F-FDG uptake during PET: a randomized controlled trial. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:286–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wykrzykowska J, Lehman S, Williams G, et al. Imaging of inflamed and vulnerable plaque in coronary arteries with 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with suppression of myocardial uptake using a low-carbohydrate, high-fat preparation. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:563–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blau M, Ganatra R, Bender MA. 18F-fluoride for bone imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 1972;2:31–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Foldager CB, Bendtsen M, Bunger C. PET scanning for evaluation of bone metabolism. Acta Orthop. 2009;80:737–8. author reply 738–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hawkins RA, Choi Y, Huang SC, et al. Evaluation of the skeletal kinetics of fluorine-18-fluoride ion with PET. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:633–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Messa C, Goodman WG, Hoh CK, et al. Bone metabolic activity measured with positron emission tomography and [18F]fluoride ion in renal osteodystrophy: correlation with bone histomorphometry. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1993;77:949–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Piert M, Zittel TT, Becker GA, et al. Assessment of porcine bone metabolism by dynamic. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1091–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cook GJ, Blake GM, Marsden PK, Cronin B, Fogelman I. Quantification of skeletal kinetic indices in Paget’s disease using dynamic 18F-fluoride positron emission tomography. J Bone Miner Res. 2002;17:854–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frost ML, Fogelman I, Blake GM, Marsden PK, Cook Jr G. Dissociation between global markers of bone formation and direct measurement of spinal bone formation in osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:1797–804.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Derlin T, Richter U, Bannas P, et al. Feasibility of 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT for imaging of atherosclerotic plaque. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:862–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Derlin T, Wisotzki C, Richter U, et al. In vivo imaging of mineral deposition in carotid plaque using 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT: correlation with atherogenic risk factors. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:362–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dweck MR, Chow MW, Joshi NV, et al. Coronary arterial 18F-sodium fluoride uptake: a novel marker of plaque biology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1539–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Houslay ES, Cowell SJ, Prescott RJ, et al. Progressive coronary calcification despite intensive lipid-lowering treatment: a randomised controlled trial. Heart. 2006;92:1207–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Arad Y, Spadaro LA, Roth M, Newstein D, Guerci AD. Treatment of asymptomatic adults with elevated coronary calcium scores with atorvastatin, vitamin C, and vitamin E: the St. Francis Heart Study randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:166–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Raggi P, Davidson M, Callister TQ, et al. Aggressive vs moderate lipid-lowering therapy in hypercholesterolemic postmenopausal women: beyond endorsed lipid lowering with EBT scanning (BELLES). Circulation. 2005;112:563–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    • Folco EJ SY, Rocha VZ, Christen T, Shvartz E, Sukhova GK, Di Carli MF, et al. Hypoxia but not inflammation augments glucose uptake in human macrophages. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:603–14. In vitro study examining the mechanisms underlying 18-FDG activity in the vasculature, which suggested that hypoxia increases macrophage uptake. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bird JL, Izquierdo-Garcia D, Davies JR, et al. Evaluation of translocator protein quantification as a tool for characterising macrophage burden in human carotid atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis. 2010;210:388–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kenny LM, Coombes RC, Oulie I, et al. Phase I trial of the positron-emitting Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD) peptide radioligand 18F-AH111585 in breast cancer patients. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:879–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Verjans J, Wolters S, Laufer W, et al. Early molecular imaging of interstitial changes in patients after myocardial infarction: comparison with delayed contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:1065–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Furumoto S, Takashima K, Kubota K, Ido T, Iwata R, Fukuda H. Tumor detection using 18F-labeled matrix metalloproteinase-2 inhibitor. Nucl Med Biol. 2003;30:119–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Toutouzas K, Drakopoulou M, Synetos A, et al. In vivo aortic valve thermal heterogeneity in patients with nonrheumatic aortic valve stenosis the: first in vivo experience in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:758–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Richards JM, Semple SI, MacGillivray TJ, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysm growth predicted by uptake of ultrasmall superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide: a pilot study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:274–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    New SE, Aikawa E. Molecular imaging insights into early inflammatory stages of arterial and aortic valve calcification. Circ Res. 2011;108:1381–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yoo H, Kim JW, Shishkov M, et al. Intra-arterial catheter for simultaneous microstructural and molecular imaging in vivo. Nat Med. 2011;17:1680–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc R. Dweck
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nikhil V. Joshi
    • 1
    • 2
  • James H. F. Rudd
    • 3
  • David E. Newby
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Cardiovascular ScienceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Clinical Research Imaging CentreUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Division of Cardiovascular MedicineUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations