Planimetry in aortic valve stenosis using computed tomography angiography - application in low gradient stenosis

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Aortic valve stenosis (AS) severity as assessed by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) can remain inconclusive when flow velocity (Vmax), mean pressure gradient (∆Pm), and calculated valve area (cAVA) are non-congruent. In particular, the combination of an cAVA<1.0cm², Vmax <4.0 m/s and ∆Pm <40mmHg (low gradient (severe) aortic stenosis (LG(S)AS)) is frequently problematic. We suggest AVA by computed tomography angiography (CTA)-planimetry (pAVACTA) as a 4th severity criteria marker to aid classification. Objectives Defining the role of CTA-planimetry in LG(S)AS through integration of pAVACTA as 4th severity marker into the ESC/JASE flow-Charts for AS severity grading. Methods Patients who presented with a cAVATTE<1.0cm², Vmax<4m/s and ∆Pm<40mmHg to our institution and underwent a pre-TAVI-CTA-scan between 2012 and 2023 were included for analysis. The role of pAVACTA as a 4th severity marker was assessed by testing for AVA severity congruence between cAVATTE and pAVACTA. Based on data from a large cohort of patients with congruent severe AS (cAVATTE<1.0cm² & Vmax≥4m/s & ∆Pm≥40mmHg) we have recently proposed a pAVACTA cut-off of ≤0.95cm² to support and a pAVACTA ≥1.1cm2 to render unlikely the diagnosis of severe AS, with values in-between deemed indeterminate by planimetry. Results A total of 81 patients presented with LFLG-AS (Low Flow SVI SVI<35ml/m², LVEF≥50%) and 173 patients with NFLG-AS (Normal Flow SVI≥35ml/m²). Congruence between cAVATTE and pAVACTA was high in both groups at 82.7% and 76.3%, respectively, with non-congruence low at 2.5% and 6.4%. Conclusion In our cohort, CTA-based planimetry confirms AVA indicative of severe AS in a high percentage of patients with LG-AS irrespective of flow. Adding pAVACTA to the diagnostic work-up as a 4th severity criteria may by useful by adding diagnostic certainty.Proposed ESC Flow Chart Modification

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.