Comparison of accuracy of aortic valve area assessment in aortic stenosis by real time three-dimensional echocardiography in biplane mode versus two-dimensional transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography

Our aim was to validate the clinical feasibility of assessment of the area of the aortic valve orifice (AVA) by real time three-dimensional echocardiography (RT3DE) in biplane mode by planimetry and to compare it with the echo-Doppler methods more commonly used to evaluate valvular aortic stenosis (AS).RT3DE in biplane mode is a novel technique that allows operators to visualize the aortic valve orifice anatomy in any desired plane orientation. Its usefulness and accuracy have not previously been established.Using this technique, we studied a series of patients with AS and compared the results with those obtained by two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) planimetry and two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography using the continuity equation (TTE-CE). RT3DE planimetries in biplane mode were measured by two independent observers. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare these two methods.Forty-one patients with AS were enrolled in the study (15 women, 26 men, mean age 73.5 +/- 8.2 years). RT3DE planimetry was feasible in 92.7%. Average AVA determined by TTE-CE was 0.76 +/- 0.20 cm, by TEE planimetry 0.73 +/- 0.1 cm, and by RT3DE planimetry 0.76 +/- 0.20 cm(2). The average differences in AVA were-0.001 +/- 0.254 cm(2) and 0.03 +/- 0.155 cm(2) (RT3DE/TEE). The correlation coefficient for AVA (RT3DE/TTE-CE) was 0.82 and for AVA (RT3DE/TEE) it was 0.94, P < 0.0001. No significant intra- and interobserver variability was observed. In conclusion, RT3DE in biplane mode provides a feasible and reproducible method for measuring the area of the aortic valve orifice in aortic stenosis.     

Magnetic resonance to assess the aortic valve area in aortic stenosis: how does it compare to current diagnostic standards?

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether magnetic resonance (MR) planimetry of the aortic valve area (AVA) may prove to be a reliable, non-invasive diagnostic tool in the assessment of aortic valve stenosis, and how the results compare with current diagnostic standards.BACKGROUND: Current standard techniques for assessing the severity of aortic stenosis include transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) as well as transvalvular pressure measurements during cardiac catheterization. METHODS: Forty consecutive patients underwent cardiac catheterization, TEE, and MR. The AVA was estimated by direct planimetry (MR, TEE) or calculated indirectly via the peak systolic transvalvular gradient (catheter). Pressure gradients from cardiac catheterization and Doppler echocardiography were also compared. RESULTS: By MR, the mean AVA(max) was 0.91 +/- 0.25 cm(2); by TEE, AVA(max) was 0.89 +/- 0.28 cm(2); and by catheter, the AVA was calculated as 0.64 +/- 0.26 cm(2). Mean absolute differences in AVA were 0.02 cm(2) for MR versus TEE, 0.27 cm(2) for MR versus catheter, and 0.25 cm(2) for TEE versus catheter. Correlations for AVA(max) were r = 0.96 between MR and TEE, r = 0.47 between TEE and catheter, and r = 0.44 between MR and catheter. The correlation between Doppler and catheter gradients was r = 0.71. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance planimetry of the AVA correlates well with TEE and less well with the catheter-derived AVA. Invasive and Doppler pressure correlated less well than those obtained from planimetric techniques. Magnetic resonance planimetry of the AVA may provide an accurate, non-invasive, well-tolerated alternative to invasive techniques and transthoracic echocardiography in the assessment of aortic stenosis.     

Influence of ejection fraction and valvular regurgitation on the accuracy of aortic valve area determination

OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of left ventricular dysfunction, aortic regurgitation, and mitral regurgitation on commonly used methods for aortic valve area (AVA) determination. BACKGROUND: Each method for AVA determination has its inherent limitations. METHODS: AVA determinations by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) using planimetry, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) with application of the continuity equation, and cardiac catheterization applying the Gorlin formula were performed in 74 patients with aortic stenosis. The severity of the aortic stenosis was defined by consensus of at least two methods. Over- or underestimation of AVA associated with ejection fraction, aortic regurgitation, mitral regurgitation, or severity of the aortic stenosis for each method in relation to the other two methods was assessed. RESULTS: Mean AVAs were 1.05 +/- 0.51 by TEE, 1.06 +/- 0.51 by TTE, and 1.08 +/- 0.53 by cardiac catheterization. An overestimation of the severity of the aortic stenosis by the Gorlin formula in patients with moderate-to-severe aortic regurgitation as compared to TEE-derived data was found (P = 0.014). A similar trend of overestimation by catheterization in comparison with the TTE data was found. In the context of moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation, AVA determination by TTE overestimated the degree of aortic stenosis as compared to TEE (P = 0.011) and cardiac catheterization (P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Overall mean AVA did not differ between methods, suggesting that these three methods are equally accurate in a nonselected clinical patient group. However, in the presence of significant aortic regurgitation, the two echocardiographic methods appear more accurate. Our observation of an overestimation of the severity of aortic stenosis by TTE in the presence of moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation indicates that this possibility should be accounted for in clinical decisions based on TTE determinations of AVA.     

Two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiographic determination of aortic valve area in adults with aortic stenosis

To determine if aortic stenosis severity could be accurately measured by two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), 62 adult subjects (mean age 66 +/- 12 years) with aortic stenosis had their aortic valve area (AVA) determined by direct planimetry using TEE, and with the continuity equation using combined transthoracic Doppler and two-dimensional echocardiography (TTE). Eighteen subjects had AVA calculated by the Gorlin method during catheterization. An excellent correlation (r = 0.93, SEE = 0.17 cm2) was found between AVA determined by TEE (mean 1.24 +/- 0.49 cm2; range 0.40 to 2.26 cm2) and TTE (mean 1.23 +/- 0.46 cm2; range 0.40 to 2.23 cm2). The absolute (0.13 +/- 0.12 cm2) and percent (10.8 +/- 8.9%) differences between AVA determined by TEE versus TTE were small. Excellent correlations between AVA by TEE and TTE were also found in subjects with normal systolic function (r = 0.95, SEE = 0.14 cm2; n = 38) and impaired function (r = 0.91, SEE = 0.21 cm2; n = 24). AVA determined by catheterization correlated better with AVA measured by TEE (r = 0.91, SEE = 0.15 cm2) than AVA measured with TTE (r = 0.84, SEE = 0.19 cm2). These data demonstrate that AVA can be accurately measured by direct planimetry using TEE in subjects with aortic stenosis. TEE may become an important adjunct to transthoracic echocardiography in the assessment of aortic stenosis severity.     

A unique case of “double‐orifice aortic valve”—comprehensive assessment by 2‐, 3‐dimensional,and color Doppler echocardiography

Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is a powerful imaging tool for the comprehensive assessment of valvular structure and function. TEE may be of added benefit when anatomy is difficult to delineate accurately by transthoracic echocardiography. In this article, we present 2‐, 3‐dimensional, and color Doppler TEE images from a male patient with aortic stenosis. A highly unusual and complex pattern of valvular calcification created a functionally “double‐orifice” valve. Such an abnormality may have implications for the accuracy of continuous‐wave Doppler echocardiography, which assumes a single orifice valve in native aortic valves.     

Using Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Tomography for Assessment of Aortic Valve Area in Aortic Valve Stenosis

Calcified aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular disease in the elderly population and constitutes a significant health and socioeconomic problem. Doppler echocardiography is the recommended diagnostic tool for the initial evaluation of AS. Transvalvular pressure gradients and aortic valve area have been used as quantitative parameters for grading the severity of AS, but the latter one is less susceptible to changes in flow dynamics and therefore considered the more independent and reliable parameter. The aortic valve area can be assessed directly by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), which reflects the anatomic or geometric orifice area, or it can be calculated noninvasively by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) using the continuity equation, or, invasively, by cardiac catheterization (CC) using the Gorlin formula, both reflecting the effective orifice area.Assessment of aortic valve area by TTE can be limited in some patients due to inadequate acoustic window. Similarly, TEE as a semi-invasive technique is not well tolerated by some patients and the planimetry is limited in patients with heavily calcified aortic valve leaflets. CC is an invasive procedure associated with a substantial risk of cerebral embolism and the Gorlin formula has been shown to be susceptible to changes in flow dynamics.Cardiac magnetic resonance tomography (CMR) is a new imaging technique capable of imaging the aortic valve with high resolution and has recently been used for assessment of the aortic valve area in AS. This review focuses on the feasibility of CMR for the assessment of aortic valve area in AS compared to current standard techniques and discusses some of the typical pitfalls and the sources for the discrepant results observed between the different techniques for assessment of the aortic valve area.     

Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging of aortic valve stenosis and aortic root to multimodality imaging for selection of transcatheter aortic valve implantation candidates

The purpose of the present study was to compare the aortic valve area, aortic valve annulus, and aortic root dimensions measured using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with catheterization, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). An optimal prosthesis--aortic root match is an essential goal when evaluating patients for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Comparisons between MRI and the other imaging techniques are rare and need validation. In 24 consecutive, high-risk, symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, aortic valve area was prospectively determined using MRI and direct planimetry using three-dimensional TTE and calculated by catheterization using the Gorlin equation and by Doppler echocardiography using the continuity equation. Aortic valve annulus and the aortic root dimensions were prospectively measured using MRI, 2-dimensional TTE, and invasive aortography. In addition, aortic valve annulus was measured using TEE. No differences in aortic valve area were found among MRI, Doppler echocardiography, and 3-dimensional TTE compared with catheterization (p = NS). Invasive angiography underestimated aortic valve annulus compared with MRI (p <0.001), TEE (p <0.001), and 2-dimensional TTE (p <0.001). Two-dimensional TTE tended to underestimate the aortic valve annulus diameters compared to TEE and MRI. In contrast to 2-dimensional TTE, 3 patients had aortic valve annulus beyond the transcatheter aortic valve implantation range using TEE and MRI. In conclusion, MRI planimetry, Doppler, and 3-dimensional TTE provided an accurate estimate of the aortic valve area compared to catheterization. MRI and TEE provided similar and essential assessment of the aortic valve annulus dimensions, especially at the limits of the transcatheter aortic valve implantation range.     

Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography: correlation of echocardiographic findings and surgical pathology

Before the introduction of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in the operating room, intraoperative echocardiography relied on epicardial imaging. The disadvantages of this approach included interference with the surgical procedure, limited windows, and potential distortion of cardiac structures. Consequently, multiplane TEE has now emerged as the intraoperative imaging method of choice. It provides high-resolution images of cardiac structures and excellent portraits of flow abnormalities. Intraoperative TEE does not interfere with the surgical field and procedure. TEE provides better imaging of the valves, atria, aorta, pulmonic vasculature, and pericardium, which are sometimes difficult to visualize by transthoracic echocardiography. TEE is especially beneficial in surgeries for valve replacement, valve repair, cardiac mass, aortic disease, congenital heart disease, and pericardial disease. Presurgical TEE provides information for surgical planning. TEE is helpful for the assessment of the immediate result of surgery and detection of complications that may need a prompt response. Thus, intraoperative TEE has a vital impact on management of cardiac surgery.     

Echocardiography in transcatheter aortic (Core)Valve implantation: Part 2—Transesophageal echocardiography

Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) plays a significant role during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVR). 2DTEE allows assessment of anatomy of the aortic valve, aortic root, left ventricular (LV) outflow tract, severity of the aortic valve stenosis (AS), and the presence and severity of other valve stenosis and regurgitation. Left and right ventricular size and global function as well as cardiac hemodynamics pre and post TAVR and LV regional wall motion can be assessed. Three‐dimensional (3D) imaging adds significantly via accurate measurement of aortic annulus that helps select the appropriate valve size. Biplane imaging allows simultaneous assessment of target cardiac structure in two orthogonal views and provides a rapid assessment during and immediately post valve deployment by evaluating stent height, leaflet motion, and the presence and severity of paravalvular leak (PVL). 2DTEE and 3DTEE allow evaluation of mechanism of PVL that helps guide the decision regarding need for balloon post dilation of the implanted valve or valve in valve implantation.     

Hemodynamic principles of prosthetic aortic valve evaluation in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement era

Evaluating the hemodynamic performance of aortic valve prostheses has relied primarily on echocardiography. This involves calculating the trans-prosthetic valve mean gradient (MG) and aortic valve area (AVA), and assessing for valvular and paravalvular regurgitation in a fashion similar to the native aortic valve. In conjunction with other echocardiographic and nonechocardiographic parameters, MG and AVA are used to distinguish between prosthesis stenosis, prosthesis patient mismatch, pressure recovery, increased flow, and measurement errors. This review will discuss the principles and limitations of echocardiographic evaluation of aortic valve prosthesis following surgical, and transcatheter aortic valve replacement and in comparison to invasive hemodynamics through illustrative clinical cases.     

胸主动脉病变术中应用经食管超声心动图的初步探讨

目的：探讨胸主动脉疾病的术中应用经食管超声心动图（ＴＥＥ）的价值及适应证。方法：本文报道８例（１５～６３岁，平均年龄４４．５岁）不同类型胸主动脉疾病术中ＴＥＥ监测结果。病例包括先天性主动脉瓣上狭窄、升主动脉瘤、主动脉夹层及主动脉夹层伴假性动脉瘤、胸降主动脉假性动脉瘤、主动脉瓣脱垂等。结果：８例患者的术中检查与术前诊断全部吻合。术中ＴＥＥ发现１例主动脉夹层累及左锁骨下动脉，而术前磁共振成像未能提示。此外，术中ＴＥＥ还显示２例胸降主动脉内的粥样硬化斑块。结论：初步显示术中ＴＥＥ可即刻评价手术效果，对拟行主动脉瓣成形术的患者最有价值；为避免升主动脉粥样斑块的脱落导致术后体循环尤其是脑栓塞，对于高龄患者也积极提倡术中ＴＥＥ监测。     

The Role of Jet Eccentricity in Generating Disproportionately Elevated Transaortic Pressure Gradients in Patients with Aortic Stenosis

In patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and eccentric transaortic flow, greater pressure loss occurs as the jet collides with the aortic wall together with delayed and diminished pressure recovery. This leads to the elevated transaortic valve pressure gradients noted on both Doppler and cardiac catheterization. Such situations may present a diagnostic dilemma where traditional measures of stenosis severity indicate severe AS, while imaging modalities of the aortic valve geometric aortic valve area (GOA) suggest less than severe stenosis. In this study, we present a series of cases exemplifying this clinical dilemma and demonstrate how color M‐mode, 2D and 3D transthoracic (TTE) and transesophageal (TEE) echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography angiography (CTA), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), may be used to resolve such discrepancies.     

Measurement of aortic valve annulus using different cardiac imaging techniques in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: agreement with finally implanted prosthesis size

Aims: To compare the measurements of the aortic annulus obtained with various imaging techniques in patients with severe aortic stenosis scheduled for transcatheter aortic valve implantation, and to determine the grade of agreement between the predicted size of the prosthesis for each technique, and the size of the finally implanted valve. Methods and results: The aortic annulus was measured in 40 patients treated by transcatheter aortic valve implantation (CoreValve aortic valve) with transthoracic (TTE) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), 64‐slice tomography, and angiography. A large valve was implanted when annulus was >23 mm and a small one if it was ≤23 mm. If the size of the prosthesis predicted by several techniques was not the same in one case, we selected the size in which more techniques presented agreement. Forty aortic valves, 26 small and 14 large, were implanted percutaneously. The best correlation was obtained with TTE and TEE (r = 0.93, P < 0.001). The correlation of TTE and TEE with angiography also was good (r = 0.58, P < 0.001 and r = 0.53, P < 0.001, respectively). Correlations between these techniques and computed tomography were poor (P = NS for all comparisons). The best agreement between estimated aortic annulus and implanted valve size was obtained with transtoracic and TEE (κ= 0.88 and 0.76). Conclusions: The aortic annulus measurements obtained by TTE, TEE, and angiography correlated well, while tomography correlated poorly with other techniques. The imaging techniques that showed the best agreement between estimated aortic annulus size and implanted aortic valve size were TTE and TEE. (Echocardiography 2011;28:388‐396)     

Aortic annulus evaluation in transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Objectives : We compared the annulus diameters measured by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), and dual‐source computed tomography (DSCT) before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Background : In TAVI correct evaluation of the aortic annulus is mandatory to choose the correct prosthesis type and size and to prevent complications. There is no gold standard for the assessment of aortic annulus diameters. Methods : Preoperative assessment of the aortic annulus with TTE, TEE, and DSCT was performed in 187 consecutive patients referred for TAVI between June 2007 and May 2009. Results : The mean aortic annuli were 22.6 ± 2.0 mm measured with DSCT, 22.3 ± 2.5 mm with TTE, and 22.9 ± 2.2 mm with TEE. Despite a strong correlation between the measurement techniques, relevant statistical spread occurred with differences up to 3 mm in all measurement methods. Inter‐ and intraobserver variability was good for TEE and less satisfactory for DSCT measurements. TEE measurements taken as decisive parameter for the implantation changed the implantation strategy in 15.5% of patients and did not show an increased rate of procedural complications. Conclusion : Despite a strong correlation, the measurement techniques for the aortic annulus show relevant statistical spread, consequently one measurement technique cannot definitely predict another. TEE measurements show a more satisfactory intra‐ and interobserver variability than DSCT. Taking TEE annulus measurements as decisive parameter for the implantation has an impact on the implantation strategy and is safe with a low rate of procedural complications. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Intracardiac echocardiography‐guided transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Echocardiographic imaging is an essential component of successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Currently, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is the imaging modality of choice for TAVR. However, a limitation of TEE is the need for general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation in most centers. Additionally, the TEE probe can obscure fluoroscopic views during valve positioning and deployment. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) has been used for imaging guidance for structural and valvular intervention, though its use has rarely been reported for primary imaging guidance during TAVR. Recently, a new volumetric three‐dimensional intracardiac ultrasound (volume ICE) system has become available with the potential for improved visualization of intracardiac structures. We describe a recent TAVR case that was successfully performed with the use of volume ICE exclusively for imaging guidance. We found that assessment of valve positioning and aortic insufficiency were comparable to that provided by conventional TEE imaging, though there were several important limitations. ICE‐guided TAVR may represent an important alternative to TEE for TAVR imaging guidance and possibly allow for less‐intensive sedation or anesthesia. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Real Time Triplane Echocardiography in Aortic Valve Stenosis: Validation,Reliability, and Feasibility of a New Method for Valve Area Quantification

Aims: The aim of the study was to validate a novel formula for aortic valve area (AVA) based on the principle of continuity equation, that substitutes Doppler‐derived stroke volume (SV) by SV directly measured with real time simultaneous triplane three‐dimensional echocardiography (RT3P). RT3P has proved accuracy for left ventricular volume calculation. So far, however, neither this potential has been applied to hemodynamic assessment, nor RT3P has succeeded in the evaluation of aortic valve disease. Methods and results: AVA was measured in 21 patients with aortic stenosis using Gorlin's equation, Doppler continuity equation (two‐dimensional echocardiography), the novel RT3P method, and by substituting Doppler‐derived SV by SV measured with two‐dimensional stroke volume (2DSV). RT3P has the best linear association (R²= 0.61) and the best correlation with Gorlin of all noninvasive methods (even if not statistically significant). RT3P carries significantly lower mean differences with catheterization, as compared with 2D and 2DSV (Table 4). Standard deviations of mean differences between RT3P and catheterization and between the other echocardiographic methods are not statistically different, even if RT3P seems to be nearer to catheterization. Inter‐ and intraobserver variability were, respectively, 0.03 ± 0.11 cm² and 0.02 ± 0.03 cm², better than 2D and 2DSV. Conclusions: RT3P has revealed to be more accurate than two‐dimensional method in AVA quantification, with a better intraobserver agreement. In addition, it allows simple and fast image acquisition. (Echocardiography 2010;27:644‐650)     

Three-dimensional echocardiographic features of unicuspid aortic valve stenosis correlate with surgical findings

A unicuspid aortic valve (UAV) is a rare congenital defect that may manifest clinically as severe aortic stenosis or regurgitation in the third to fifth decade of life. This report describes two cases of UAV stenosis in adult patients diagnosed by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). The utility of three-dimensional TEE in confirming valve morphology and its relevance to transcatheter valve replacement are discussed.     

Feasibility of Using Real Time “Live 3D” Echocardiography to Visualize the Stenotic Aortic Valve

Background: Aortic stenosis valve area (AS AVA) using the continuity equation (CE AVA) has limitations. Thus anatomic assessment of AS AVA would be useful. Method: AS AVA was measured using “live three‐dimensional (3D)” echocardiography that is a two‐dimensional (2D) display of a three‐dimensionally acquired 2–3 cm thick pyramidal image. In 52 aortic stenosis patients with CE AVA measurements, attempts were made at measuring AS AVA using 2D echocardiography (2D AVA) and real time, Live 3D echocardiography (3D AVA). 3D AVA and 2D AVA were compared to each other and to CE AVA. Results: 2D AVA could be obtained in 30 patients (58%) and 3D AVA in 50 patients (96%). Of the 30 patients in whom 3D AVA and 2D AVA were both measured, the correlation was 0.831 (P < 0.001). 3D AVA was smaller in 19 patients. In 17 of these patients, 3D AVA was closer to CE AVA. In two patients, 2D AVA was smaller than 3D AVA and in both patients 3D AVA was closer to CE AVA. The correlations between 2D AVA and CE AVA and 3D AVA and CE AVA were 0.581 and 0.673, respectively (all P < 0.001). Conclusion: A simplified 3D technique that is a “thick slice” 2D examination, can obtain AS AVA more often than a “thin slice” 2D echocardiogram. This 3D AVA correlates well with 2D AVA but is smaller and correlates better with CE AVA suggesting that the effective AS orifice is not planar but is more of a “tunnel” than a “flat ring.” (Echocardiography 2010;27:1011‐1020)     

Role of transesophageal echocardiography in percutaneous aortic valve replacement with the CoreValve Revalving system

Percutaneous aortic valve replacement (PAVR) is an emerging therapy for nonsurgical patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). We examined the role of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in PAVR. TEE was used initially to assess the native valve and aortic root, and served as a guide during PAVR. Following prosthetic valve deployment, TEE was used to assess valve function. Eleven patients aged 82 +/- 10 years with NYHA III-IV underwent PAVR. Periprocedural TEE gave immediate information on prosthetic position and function, LV function, mitral regurgitation, pericardium, and thoracic aorta anatomy. There was excellent visual agreement between fluoroscopic and TEE images of prosthetic positioning and deployment. TEE facilitated the detection and management of procedure-related complications. Compared with pre-PAVR, AV area (0.56 +/- 0.19 cm(2) vs. 1.3 +/- 0.4 cm(2); P < 0.001) and LVEF (49 +/- 17% vs. 56 +/- 11%; P < 0.001) increased. TEE provides key anatomical and functional information, and serves as a diagnostic guide for complications, which may arise during PAVR.     

Aortic valve calcium content does not predict aortic valve area

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Aortic stenosis (AS) is a common clinical problem which frequently necessitates aortic valve replacement (AVR). The traditional view of progressive AS is a 1:1 inverse relationship between valve calcium content and aortic valve area (AVA). However, this assumption has been based on subjective estimates of calcification on chest X-radiographic images. The study aim was to evaluate the relationship between AVA as measured with echocardiography compared to calcium quantification using electron beam computed tomography (EBT). METHODS: Sixty-one patients with an AVA between 0.7 and 2.0 cm2 underwent an EBT scan to evaluate the aortic valve calcium content. RESULTS: The mean (+/- SD) aortic valve Agatston calcium score was 1,458.4 +/- 1,362.2, and for the aortic valve volume score was 1,178.8 +/- 1,066.0. The aortic valve Agatston score did not correlate strongly with AVA (r = -0.34, 95% CI -0.54, -0.09; p = 0.007). The data pattern appeared curvilinear, with the poorest correlation noted for those patients with moderate and severe aortic valve calcification. CONCLUSION: The study findings support the hypothesis that the aortic valve orifice area decreases not only due to calcium accumulation but also to sclerotic processes.