Computed Tomography Imaging for Aortic Valve Disease

  • Mickaël Ohana
  • Anthony Shaw
  • Romi Grover
  • John Mooney
  • Jonathon Leipsic
  • Philipp Blanke
Chapter

Abstract

Contemporary with the rise of transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures, computed tomography angiography (CTA) has demonstrated excellent diagnostic performances in the positive diagnosis and risk stratification of patient with aortic stenosis (AS). Provided that an up-to-date acquisition protocol and a comprehensive posttreatment are used, CTA can diagnose aortic stenosis (AS) (measurement of the geometrical valve area), stratify its severity (calcium scoring), and help plan the percutaneous procedure (annulus sizing, determination of adverse root features, arterial route accessibility). The role of CTA in other aortic valve diseases is less well established, though with increasing evidence of usefulness in bicuspid aortic valves and in infective endocarditis.

The goal of this chapter is, after a practical review of the technical aspects of aortic valve CTA, to describe the CT imaging characteristics of the principal aortic valve diseases, with emphasis on the key components of patient screening and procedural planning.

References

  1. 1.
    Hoey ET, Ganeshan A. Multi-detector CT angiography of the aortic valve-part 1: anatomy, technique and systematic approach to interpretation. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2014;4(4):265–72.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Binder RK, Webb JG, Willson AB, et al. The impact of integration of a multidetector computed tomography annulus area sizing algorithm on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a prospective, multicenter, controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(5):431–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ohana M, Georg Y, Lejay A, et al. Current optimal morphological evaluation of peripheral arterial diseases. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;56(2):287–97.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leipsic J, Abbara S, Achenbach S, et al. SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary CT angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2014;8(5):342–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abbara S, Arbab-Zadeh A, Callister TQ, et al. SCCT guidelines for performance of coronary computed tomographic angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2009;3(3):190–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA, et al. Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology. 2008;246(3):742–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Machida H, Tanaka I, Fukui R, et al. Current and novel imaging techniques in coronary CT. Radiographics. 2015;35(4):991–1010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halliburton SS, Abbara S, Chen MY, et al. SCCT guidelines on radiation dose and dose-optimization strategies in cardiovascular CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011;5(4):198–224.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saikrishnan N, Kumar G, Sawaya FJ, Lerakis S, Yoganathan AP. Accurate assessment of aortic stenosis: a review of diagnostic modalities and hemodynamics. Circulation. 2014;129(2):244–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoey ET, Ganeshan A. Multi-detector CT angiography of the aortic valve-part 2: disease specific findings. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2014;4(4):273–81.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cueff C, Serfaty JM, Cimadevilla C, et al. Measurement of aortic valve calcification using multislice computed tomography: correlation with haemodynamic severity of aortic stenosis and clinical implication for patients with low ejection fraction. Heart. 2011;97(9):721–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clavel MA, Messika-Zeitoun D, Pibarot P, et al. The complex nature of discordant severe calcified aortic valve disease grading: new insights from combined Doppler echocardiographic and computed tomographic study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(24):2329–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clavel MA, Malouf J, Messika-Zeitoun D, Araoz PA, Michelena HI, Enriquez-Sarano M. Aortic valve area calculation in aortic stenosis by CT and Doppler echocardiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(3):248–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halpern EJ, Mallya R, Sewell M, Shulman M, Zwas DR. 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. 2009;192(6):1668–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flachskampf FA. Stenotic aortic valve area: should it be calculated from CT instead of echocardiographic data? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(3):258–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pouleur AC, le Polain de Waroux JB, Pasquet A, Vanoverschelde JL, Gerber BL. Aortic valve area assessment: multidetector CT compared with cine MR imaging and transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography. Radiology. 2007;244(3):745–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anger T, Bauer V, Plachtzik C, et al. Non-invasive and invasive evaluation of aortic valve area in 100 patients with severe aortic valve stenosis: comparison of cardiac computed tomography with ECHO (transesophageal/transthoracic) and catheter examination. J Cardiol. 2014;63(3):189–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Al-Hassan D, Blanke P, Leipsic J. Multidetector computed tomography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Where we stand. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2013;61(4):407–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Naoum C, Blanke P, Leipsic J. Computed tomography imaging prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Curr Radiol Rep. 2015;3(5):1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lejay A, Caspar T, Ohana M, et al. Vascular access complications in endovascular procedures with large sheaths. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;57(2):311–21.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blanke P, Schoepf UJ, Leipsic JA. CT in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Radiology. 2013;269(3):650–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murphy DT, Blanke P, Alaamri S, et al. Dynamism of the aortic annulus: effect of diastolic versus systolic CT annular measurements on device selection in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2016;10(1):37–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blanke P, Willson AB, Webb JG, et al. Oversizing in transcatheter aortic valve replacement, a commonly used term but a poorly understood one: dependency on definition and geometrical measurements. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2014;8(1):67–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rajiah P, Schoenhagen P. The role of computed tomography in pre-procedural planning of cardiovascular surgery and intervention. Insights Imaging. 2013;4(5):671–89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Loor G, Desai MY, Roselli EE. Pre-operative 3D CT imaging for virtual planning of minimally invasive aortic valve surgery. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(2):269–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Feuchtner GM, Dichtl W, Schachner T, et al. Diagnostic performance of MDCT for detecting aortic valve regurgitation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(6):1676–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Feuchtner GM, Dichtl W, Muller S, et al. 64-MDCT for diagnosis of aortic regurgitation in patients referred to CT coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(1):W1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alkadhi H, Desbiolles L, Husmann L, et al. Aortic regurgitation: assessment with 64-section CT. Radiology. 2007;245(1):111–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hayashida K, Bouvier E, Lefevre T, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for patients with severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(3):284–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alkadhi H, Leschka S, Trindade PT, et al. Cardiac CT for the differentiation of bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves: comparison with echocardiography and surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(4):900–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rubin JM, Avanzas P, del Valle R, et al. Atrioventricular conduction disturbance characterization in transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Core valve prosthesis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(3):280–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Popma JJ, Ramadan R. CT imaging of bicuspid aortic valve disease for TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(10):1159–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.02.028.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sievers HH, Schmidtke C. A classification system for the bicuspid aortic valve from 304 surgical specimens. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;133(5):1226–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jilaihawi H, Chen M, Webb J, et al. A bicuspid aortic valve imaging classification for the TAVR era. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(10):1145–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.12.022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Durack DT, Lukes AS, Bright DK. New criteria for diagnosis of infective endocarditis: utilization of specific echocardiographic findings. Duke Endocarditis Service. Am J Med. 1994;96(3):200–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mylonakis E, Calderwood SB. Infective endocarditis in adults. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(18):1318–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Feuchtner GM, Stolzmann P, Dichtl W, et al. Multislice computed tomography in infective endocarditis: comparison with transesophageal echocardiography and intraoperative findings. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(5):436–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Takeuchi N, Takada M, Fujita K, Nishibori Y, Maruyama T, Naba K. Aortic valve papillary fibroelastoma associated with acute cerebral infarction: a case report. Case Rep Cardiol. 2013;2013:485029.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Darvishian F, Farmer P. Papillary fibroelastoma of the heart: report of two cases and review of the literature. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2001;31(3):291–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sparrow PJ, Kurian JB, Jones TR, Sivananthan MU. MR imaging of cardiac tumors. Radiographics. 2005;25(5):1255–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pham N, Zaitoun H, Mohammed TL, et al. Complications of aortic valve surgery: manifestations at CT and MR imaging. Radiographics. 2012;32(7):1873–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Han K, Yang DH, Shin SY, et al. Subprosthetic pannus after aortic valve replacement surgery: cardiac CT findings and clinical features. Radiology. 2015;276(3):724–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chan J, Marwan M, Schepis T, Ropers D, Du L, Achenbach S. Images in cardiovascular medicine. Cardiac CT assessment of prosthetic aortic valve dysfunction secondary to acute thrombosis and response to thrombolysis. Circulation. 2009;120(19):1933–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chenot F, Montant P, Goffinet C, et al. Evaluation of anatomic valve opening and leaflet morphology in aortic valve bioprosthesis by using multidetector CT: comparison with transthoracic echocardiography. Radiology. 2010;255(2):377–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mahjoub H, Mathieu P, Larose E, et al. Determinants of aortic bioprosthetic valve calcification assessed by multidetector CT. Heart. 2015;101(6):472–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tsai IC, Lin YK, Chang Y, et al. Correctness of multi-detector-row computed tomography for diagnosing mechanical prosthetic heart valve disorders using operative findings as a gold standard. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(4):857–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Leetmaa T, Hansson NC, Leipsic J, et al. Early aortic transcatheter heart valve thrombosis: diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(4):e001596.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pache G, Schoechlin S, Blanke P, et al. Early hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening in balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic heart valves. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(28):2263–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Makkar RR, Fontana G, Jilaihawi H, et al. Possible subclinical leaflet thrombosis in bioprosthetic aortic valves. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(21):2015–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mickaël Ohana
    • 1
  • Anthony Shaw
    • 1
  • Romi Grover
    • 1
  • John Mooney
    • 1
  • Jonathon Leipsic
    • 1
  • Philipp Blanke
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCentre for Heart Valve Innovation St Paul’s Hospital, University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations