• Evaluation of Anatomic Valve Opening and Leaflet Morphology in Aortic Valve Bioprosthesis by Using Multidetector CT: Comparison with Transthoracic Echocardiography

    Radiology: Volume 255: Number 2—May 2010

    Evaluation of Anatomic Valve Opening and Leaflet Morphology in Aortic Valve Bioprosthesis by Using Multidetector CT: Comparison with Transthoracic Echocardiography

    Fabien Chenot, MD Patrick Montant, MD Céline Goffinet, MD Agnès Pasquet, MD David Vancraeynest, MD Emmanuel Coche, MD Jean-Louis Vanoverschelde, MD Bernhard L. Gerber, MD

    Purpose: To prospectively determine whether cardiac-gated multi­detector computed tomography (CT) allows visualization of aortic valve leaflets after bioprosthetic aortic valve re­placement (AVR), to provide an accurate method for mea­suring the aortic valve opening, and to provide morpho­logic and functional information regarding the mechanism underlying poor function of the bioprosthetic valve.

    Materials and Methods: The institutional review board approved the study proto­col; informed consent was given. Fifty-four patients (27 men; mean age, 75 years ± 8 [standard deviation]) with bioprosthetic AVR implanted 2 years ± 3 earlier under­went 64-section CT and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). Two blinded observers manually planimetered the aortic valve area (AVA) by using a computer workstation on end-systolic short-axis CT images and measured open­ing angles (OAs) between the bioprosthesis annulus base and the free margin on long-axis images. These measurements were compared with those of the effective orifice area (EOA) of the valve at Doppler continuity-equation TTE by using regression and Bland-Altman methods. Morphology and mobility of leaflets in normally functioning (EOA in­dexed to body surface area [EOA] > 0.65 cm2/m2) and dysfunctional (EOAi< 0.65 cm2/m2) AVRs were compared.

    Results: AVA at CT correlated highly to EOA at TTE (r = 0.93, P < .001) but was significantly larger (1.2 cm2 ± 0.4 vs 1.1 cm2 ± 0.3, P < .001) than EOA at TTE. In dysfunctional bioprostheses (n = 34), CT results showed a variety of morphologic abnormalities, such as leaflet thickening (n = 9), presumed thrombotic material (n = 6), and leaflet cal­cification (n = 1). Multidetector CT results demonstrated restriction of leaflet motion indicated by lower OA (64° ± 5 vs 79° ± 3, P < .0001) in dysfunctional AVRs than in normally functioning AVRs (n = 11).

    Conclusion: Sixty-four-section CT can help accurately measure AVA in bioprosthetic AVR compared with EOA at TTE. It can also show morphologic abnormalities and reduced leaflet mo­tion in a dysfunctional bioprosthesis, thereby potentially unraveling the mechanism of dysfunction.