AUTHOR=Kim Kyu , Lee Soo Ji , Seo Jiwon , Suh Young Joo , Cho Iksung , Hong Geu-Ru , Ha Jong-Won , Kim Young Jin , Shim Chi Young TITLE=Assessment of aortic valve area on cardiac computed tomography in symptomatic bicuspid aortic stenosis: Utility and differences from Doppler echocardiography JOURNAL=Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine VOLUME=9 YEAR=2022 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.1035244 DOI=10.3389/fcvm.2022.1035244 ISSN=2297-055X ABSTRACT=Background

In this study, we investigate the utility of geometric orifice area (GOA) on cardiac computed tomography (CT) and differences from effective orifice area (EOA) on Doppler echocardiography in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS).

Methods

A total of 163 patients (age 64 ± 10 years, 56.4% men) with symptomatic bicuspid AS who were referred for surgery and underwent both cardiac CT and echocardiography within 3 months were studied. To calculate the aortic valve area, GOACT was measured by multiplanar CT planimetry, and EOAEcho was calculated by the continuity equation with Doppler echocardiography. The relationships between GOACT and EOAEcho and patient symptom scale, biomarkers, and left ventricular (LV) functional variables were analyzed.

Results

There was a significant but modest correlation between EOAEcho and GOACT (r = 0.604, p < 0.001). Both EOAEcho and GOACT revealed significant correlations with mean pressure gradient and peak transaortic velocity, and the coefficients were higher in EOAEcho than in GOACT. EOAEcho of 1.05 cm2 and GOACT of 1.25 cm2 corresponds to hemodynamic cutoff values for diagnosing severe AS. EOAEcho was well correlated with the patient symptom scale and log NT-pro BNP, but GOACT was not. In addition, EOAEcho had a higher correlation coefficient with estimated LV filling pressure and LV global longitudinal strain than GOACT.

Conclusion

GOACT can be used to evaluate the severity of bicuspid AS. The threshold for GOACT for diagnosing severe AS should be higher than that for EOAEcho. However, EOAEcho is still the method of choice because EOAEcho showed better correlations with clinical and functional variables than GOACT.