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.     

Valve orifice area in aortic stenosis evaluated by planimetry, Gorlin and continuity equations: a prospective study.

In evaluation of the severity of aortic valve stenosis, multiple parameters can be determined. All of them, except valve orifice area, are influenced by other factors such as cardiac output, heart rate or aortic insufficiency. OBJECTIVES: This is a prospective study which proposes, in the determination of the valve orifice area in aortic stenosis, to evaluate the accuracy of and correlation between three methods--planimetry by multiplane transesophageal echocardiography, the continuity equation by transthoracic echocardiography, and invasive measurement using the Gorlin formula. METHODS: Forty-five patients with known calcified valvular aortic stenosis 27 men, mean age 70 +/- 10 years, (range 27-82), were studied. In all patients the area was determined by planimetry and by the continuity equation. In 25 (56%) patients invasive measurements were obtained using the Gorlin formula. RESULTS: Evaluation of the valve orifice area by planimetry was easily performed and did not prolong the duration of the exam, except in five patients (11%). The area determined by the continuity equation had a mean value of 0.74 +/- 0.25 cm2, by planimetry 0.74 +/- 0.24 cm2 and by the Gorlin formula 0.65 +/- 0.17 cm2. Correlations between areas obtained by the three methods used were: continuity equation and planimetry 0.82; continuity equation and Gorlin formula 0.51; and planimetry and Gorlin formula 0.80. Concordance analysis (Bland and Altman's method) gave mean (Mn) values for the differences in the areas determined by the Gorlin formula and the continuity equation of 0.01 +/- 0.15 cm2 (Mn - 2SD = -0.29, Mn + 2SD = 0.30). The estimated value by the Gorlin formula and planimetry was 0.02 +/- 0.10 (Mn - 2SD = -0.19, Mn + 2SD = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: 1) Planimetry of the valve orifice area by transesophageal echocardiography is feasible and does not prolong the duration of the exam in the majority of patients. 2) The strong correlation and the results of concordance analysis, in the determination of valve orifice area, between traditional invasive methods and planimetry, support the use of this noninvasive method in clinical practice.     

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.     

Ventricular stroke work loss: validation of a method of quantifying the severity of aortic stenosis and derivation of an orifice formula

Because aortic stenosis results in the loss of left ventricular stroke work (due to resistance to flow through the valve and turbulence in the aorta), the percentage of stroke work that is lost may reflect the severity of stenosis. This index can be calculated from pressure data alone. The relation between percent stroke work loss and anatomic aortic valve orifice area (measured by planimetry from videotape) was investigated in a pulsatile flow model. Thirteen valves were studied (nine human aortic valves obtained at necropsy and four bioprosthetic valves) at stroke volumes of 40 to 100 ml, giving 57 data points. Valve area ranged from 0.3 to 2.8 cm2 and mean systolic pressure gradient from 3 to 84 mm Hg. Percent stroke work loss, calculated as mean systolic pressure gradient divided by mean ventricular systolic pressure x 100%, ranged from 7 to 68%. It was closely related to anatomic orifice area with an inverse exponential relation and was not significantly related to flow (r = -0.15). An orifice formula was derived that predicted anatomic orifice area with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.5 cm2 (orifice area [cm2] = 4.82 [2.39 x log percent stroke work loss], r = -0.94, SEE = 0.029). These results support the clinical use of percent stroke work loss as an easily obtained index of the severity of aortic stenosis.     

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.     

Reproducibility of Doppler echocardiographic quantification of aortic and mitral valve stenoses: comparison between two echocardiography centers

Doppler echocardiography has been widely used as a noninvasive method to quantify valvular heart diseases. This study assessed the variability between 2 echocardiography centers concerning 2-dimensional and Doppler echocardiographic results in the quantification of mitral and aortic valve stenoses. Forty-two patients were studied by 2 different echocardiography centers in a blinded, independent fashion. In patients with aortic and mitral valve stenosis, mean and maximal flow velocities were measured. The aortic valve orifice area was calculated according to the continuity equation. Mitral valve orifice area was determined by direct planimetry and by pressure half-time. In patients with an aortic valve stenosis, a close relation between the 2 centers was found for the maximal and mean flow velocities (coefficient of correlation, r = 0.72 to 0.92; coefficient of variation, 3.7 to 7.7%). A close correlation and a small observer variability was found for the flow velocity ratio determined by flow velocities measured in the left ventricular outflow tract and over the stenotic valve (r = 0.88; coefficient of variation, 0.01 +/- 0.009). In contrast, there was a poor correlation between the diameter of the left ventricular outflow tract and the aortic orifice area (r = 0.36 and 0.59, respectively). In patients with a mitral valve stenosis, mean and maximal velocities were closely correlated (r = 0.85 and 0.77, respectively). Velocities were not found to be significantly different between the 2 centers. Variability between the 2 centers for the mitral valve orifice area was 9.8% (2-dimensional echocardiography) and 5.7% (pressure half-time).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Noninvasive assessment of valve area in patients with aortic stenosis

A noninvasive method for quantification of aortic orifice area in patients with aortic stenosis is presented and compared with cardiac catheterization data in 24 patients (mean age 67 years). A continuous wave 2 MHz Doppler ultrasound instrument was used to measure the maximal velocity of the aortic jet, and time-averaged pressure drop was obtained by planimetry from the maximal velocity spectral recording using a simplified Bernoulli equation. Left ventricular ejection time was also measured from the spectral recording. Stroke volume was determined with a carbon dioxide-rebreathing method. Noninvasively determined aortic valve areas showed a close correlation with those determined at cardiac catheterization, but mean pressure gradients measured noninvasively were slightly but significantly higher than those measured at catheterization, leading to an underestimation of valve areas with the noninvasive technique, especially when valve areas were large. Neglect of blood flow velocity in the left ventricular outflow tract and recovery of static pressure downstream from the aortic orifice contribute to the difference in the pressure measurements. All patients with a valve area less than 1 cm2 at catheterization, however, also had an area less than 1 cm2 at the noninvasive investigation. This noninvasive approach to the evaluation of the severity of aortic stenosis seems promising for routine clinical use.     

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.     

Doppler echocardiography in the evaluation of the results of balloon catheter valvuloplasty in aortic valve stenosis

This study was undertaken to assess the diagnostic value of Doppler echocardiographic methods for determination of the mean pressure gradient and valve orifice area in the evaluation of the results of balloon valvuloplasty (PTVP) in aortic stenosis by comparison with invasively-determined measurements. In 16 patients with aortic valve stenosis, eight men and eight women, mean age 64 +/- 10 years, Doppler echocardiographic studies were performed one day before and after PTVP. The mean pressure gradient was calculated with the aid of the modified Bernoulli equation and the aortic valve orifice area with the continuity equation. After PTVP, on comparison of Doppler echocardiographic and invasively-determined pressure gradients, there was no significant correlation (n = 16, y = 0.3x + 18.7, r = 0.36, SEE = 9.3 mm Hg) (Figure 2). Prior to PTVP the two methods correlated reasonably well with each other (n = 16, y = 0.6x + 7.7, r = 0.54, SEE = 17.8 mm Hg) (Figure 2). On comparison of the Doppler echocardiographic and invasively-determined aortic valve orifice area, both after and before PTVP, there were significant linear correlations (n = 8, y = 0.41x + 0.41, r = 0.73, SEE = 0.12 cm2 and n = 14, y = 0.71x + 0.17, r = 0.86, SEE = 0.10 cm2, respectively) (Figure 4). Correspondingly, there was close agreement between the change in absolute aortic valve orifice areas determined invasively (0.18 +/- 0.15 cm2) and noninvasively (0.15 +/- 0.10 cm2, n = 8).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

The simultaneous assessment of aortic valve area and coronary artery stenosis using 16-slice multidetector-row computed tomography in patients with aortic stenosis comparison with echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Recent advancements in 16-slice multidetector-row computed tomography (16-slice MDCT) provide for non-invasive assessment of not only coronary artery disease (CAD), but also myocardial properties and the anatomy of the whole heart. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether the aortic valve area (AVA) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) assessed by 16-slice MDCT corresponds to echocardiographic assessment and to evaluate simultaneously the clinical accuracy in detecting CAD with 16-slice MDCT. METHODS AND RESULTS: The AVA of 29 consecutive AS patients with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and 16-slice MDCT were analyzed. The AVA was estimated by means of the continuity equation method in 2-dimensional echocardiography (DE) and the quantitative planimetric method after multi-planar reformation in 16-slice MDCT. Concomitantly, the severity of the coronary artery stenosis was assessed by 16-slice MDCT. In the present study, the AVA assessed by TTE and 16-slice MDCT was 1.34+/-0.32 cm(2) and 1.38+/-0.32 cm(2), respectively. Regression analysis showed that the AVA in patients with AS determined by 16-slice MDCT correlated well with those determined by 2-DE (r=0.96, p<0.001). Significant coronary artery stenosis of more than 50% diameter reduction was present in 48% of the study population. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AS, the analysis of the severity of the AVA by 16-slice MDCT provides a feasible and accurate estimation with the concomitant evaluation of CAD.     

Effect of three-dimensional valve shape on the hemodynamics of aortic stenosis: three-dimensional echocardiographic stereolithography and patient studies

OBJECTIVES: This study tested the hypothesis that the impact of a stenotic aortic valve depends not only on the cross-sectional area of its limiting orifice but also on three-dimensional (3D) valve geometry. BACKGROUND: Valve shape can potentially affect the hemodynamic impact of aortic stenosis by altering the ratio of effective to anatomic orifice area (the coefficient of orifice contraction [Cc]). For a given flow rate and anatomic area, a lower Cc increases velocity and pressure gradient. This effect has been recognized in mitral stenosis but assumed to be absent in aortic stenosis (constant Cc of 1 in the Gorlin equation). METHODS: In order to study this effect with actual valve shapes in patients, 3D echocardiography was used to reconstruct a typical spectrum of stenotic aortic valve geometrics from doming to flat. Three different shapes were reproduced as actual models by stereolithography (computerized laser polymerization) with orifice areas of 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0 cm(2) (total of nine valves) and studied with physiologic flows. To determine whether valve shape actually influences hemodynamics in the clinical setting, we also related Cc (= continuity/planimeter areas) to stenotic aortic valve shape in 35 patients with high-quality echocardiograms. RESULTS: In the patient-derived 3D models, Cc varied prominently with valve shape, and was largest for long, tapered domes that allow more gradual flow convergence compared with more steeply converging flat valves (0.85 to 0.90 vs. 0.71 to 0.76). These variations translated into differences of up to 40% in pressure drop for the same anatomic area and flow rate, with corresponding variations in Gorlin (effective) area relative to anatomic values. In patients, Cc was significantly lower for flat versus doming bicuspid valves (0.73 +/- 0.14 vs. 0.94 +/- 0.14, p < 0.0001) with 40 +/- 5% higher gradients (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional valve shape is an important determinant of pressure loss in patients with aortic stenosis, with smaller effective areas and higher pressure gradients for flatter valves. This effect can translate into clinically important differences between planimeter and effective valve areas (continuity or Gorlin). Therefore, valve shape provides additional information beyond the planimeter orifice area in determining the impact of valvular aortic stenosis on patient hemodynamics.     

Determination of aortic valve orifice area in aortic valve stenosis by two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography

Two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography was used to measure aortic valve orifice area in 24 patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS) and 15 patients without aortic valve disease. Using transesophageal echocardiography, orifice area could be measured in 20 of 24 patients with AS. With transthoracic echocardiography, orifice area could be determined in only 2 of 24 patients. In patients with AS, orifice area determined by transesophageal echocardiography was 0.75 +/- 0.34 cm2 and that calculated with Gorlin's formula was 0.75 +/- 0.32 cm2. In normal aortic valves, orifice area was 3.9 +/- 1.2 cm2 by transesophageal echocardiography. A good correlation was demonstrated between aortic valve orifice area determined using transesophageal echocardiography and calculated orifice area using Gorlin's formula in patients with AS: r = 0.92, standard error of estimate = 0.14 cm2. The absolute difference between orifice area measured with both methods ranged from 0.0 to 0.4 cm2 (mean 0.09 +/- 0.1). In 4 patients orifice area could not be determined with transesophageal echocardiography. The orifice could not be identified in 2 patients because an appropriate cross-sectional view of the aortic valve could not be achieved and in 2 patients with pinhole stenosis (aortic valve orifice area 0.3 cm2). These data show that aortic valve orifice area can be measured reliably using 2-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography.     

Quantitative assessment of aortic stenosis by three-dimensional anyplane and three-dimensional volume-rendered echocardiography

Aortic stenosis is a challenge for three-dimensional (3-D) echocardiographic image resolution. This is the first study evaluating both 3-D anyplane and 3-D volume-rendered echocardiography in the quantification of aortic stenosis. In 31 patients, 3-D echocardiography was performed using a multiplane transesophageal probe. Within the acquired volume dataset, five parallel cross sections were generated through the aortic valve. Subsequently, volume-rendered images of the five cross sections were reconstructed. The smallest orifice areas of both series were compared with the results obtained by two-dimensional (2-D) transesophageal planimetry and those calculated by Doppler continuity equation. No significant differences were found between Doppler (0.76 +/- 0.18 cm(2)), 2-D echocardiography (0.78 +/- 0.24 cm(2)), and 3-D anyplane echocardiography (0.72 +/- 0.29 cm(2)). The orifice area measured smaller (0.54 =/- 0.31 cm(2), P < 0.001) by 3-D volume-rendered echocardiography. Bland-Altmann analysis indicated that for 3-D anyplane echocardiography, the mean difference from Doppler and 2-D echocardiography was - 0.04 +/- 0.24 cm(2) and - 0.06 +/- 0.23 cm(2), respectively. For 3-D volume-rendered echocardiography, the mean difference was -0.23 +/- 0.24 cm(2) and - 0.25 +/- 0.26 cm(2), respectively. In the subgroup with good resolution in the 3-D dataset, close limits of agreement were obtained between 3-D echocardiography and each of the reference methods, while the subgroup with poor resolution showed wide limits of agreement. In conclusion, planimetry of the stenotic aortic orifice by 3-D volume-rendered echocardiography is feasible but tends to underestimate the orifice area. Three-dimensional anyplane echocardiography shows better agreement with the reference methods. Accuracy is influenced strongly by the structural resolution of the stenotic orifice in the 3-D dataset.     

Planimetry of aortic valve area using multiplane transoesophageal echocardiography is not a reliable method for assessing severity of aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability of aortic valve area planimetry by multiplane transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) in aortic stenosis. DESIGN: Study of the diagnostic value of aortic valve area planimetry using multiplane TOE, compared with catheterisation and the continuity equation, both being considered as criterion standards. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: 49 consecutive patients (29 male, 20 female, aged 44 to 82 years, average 66.6 (SD 8.5)), referred for haemodynamic evaluation of an aortic stenosis, were enrolled in a prospective study. From this sample, 37 patients were eligible for the final analysis. METHODS: Transthoracic and multiplane transoesophageal echocardiograms were performed within 24 hours before catheterisation. At transthoracic echo, aortic valve area was calculated by the continuity equation. At TOE, the image of the aortic valve opening was obtained with a 30-65 degrees rotation of the transducer. Numerical dynamic images were stored on optical discs for off-line analysis and were reviewed by two blinded observers. Catheterisation was performed in all cases and aortic valve area was calculated by the Gorlin formula. RESULTS: Feasibility of the method was 92% (48/52). The agreement between aortic valve area measured at TOE (mean 0.88 (SD 0.35) cm2) and at catheterisation (0.79 (0.24) cm2) was very poor. The same discrepancies were found between TOE and the continuity equation (0.72 (0.26) cm2). TOE planimetry overestimated aortic valve area determined by the two other methods. Predictive positive and negative values of planimetry to detect aortic valve area < 0.75 cm2 were 62% (10/16) and 43% (9/21) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Planimetry of aortic valve area by TOE is difficult and less accurate than the continuity equation for assessing the severity of aortic stenosis.     

Quantification of aortic valve area and left ventricular muscle mass in healthy subjects and patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis by MRI

MRI allows visualization and planimetry of the aortic valve orifice and accurate determination of left ventricular muscle mass, which are important parameters in aortic stenosis. In contrast to invasive methods, MRI planimetry of the aortic valve area (AVA) is flow independent. AVA is usually indexed to body surface area. Left ventricular muscle mass is dependent on weight and height in healthy individuals.We studied AVA, left ventricular muscle mass (LMM) and ejection fraction (EF) in 100 healthy individuals and in patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis (AS). All were examined by MRI (1.5 Tesla Siemens Sonate) and the AVA was visualized in segmented 2D flash sequences and planimetry of the performed AVA was manually.The aortic valve area in healthy individuals was 3.9+/-0.7 cm(2), and the LMM was 99+/-27 g. In a correlation analysis, the strongest correlation of AVA was to height (r=0.75, p<0.001) and for LMM to weight (r=0.64, p<0.001). In a multiple regression analysis, the expected AVA for healthy subjects can be predicted using body height: AVA=-2.64+0.04 x(height in cm) -0.47 x w (w=0 for man, w=1 for female).In patients with aortic valve stenosis, AVA was 1.0+/-0.35 cm(2), in correlation to cath lab r=0.72, and LMM was 172+/-56 g.We compared the AS patients results with the data of the healthy subjects, where the reduction of the AVA was 28+/-10% of the expected normal value, while LMM was 42% higher in patients with AS. There was no correlation to height, weight or BSA in patients with AS.With cardiac MRI, planimetry of AVA for normal subjects and patients with AS offered a simple, fast and non-invasive method to quantify AVA. In addition LMM and EF could be determined. The strong correlation between height and AVA documented in normal subjects offered the opportunity to integrate this relation between expected valve area and definitive orifice in determining the disease of the aortic valve for the individual patient. With diagnostic MRI in patients with AS, invasive measurements of the systolic transvalvular gradient does not seem to be necessary.     

What do you mean by aortic valve area: geometric orifice area, effective orifice area, or gorlin area?

Aortic valve area can be measured by cardiac catheterization, Doppler echocardiography, or imaging planimetry to assess aortic stenosis severity. These diagnostic techniques provide the Gorlin area, the effective orifice area (EOA) and the geometric orifice area (GOA), respectively. The differences between these three parameters depend mainly on the valve inflow shape and cross-sectional area of the ascending aorta. Because the values obtained may differ noticeably in the same patient, they may lead to different estimations of stenosis severity depending on the measurement method used. It is therefore essential to be aware of the underlying fundamentals on which these parameters are based. The aim of this state-of-the-art report was to clarify these hemodynamic concepts and to underline their clinical implications. Because planimetry only provides GOA and does not characterize the flow property, this method should preferably not be used to assess stenosis severity. The most appropriate parameters for this purpose are the Gorlin area and the energy loss coefficient (E(L)Co), which corresponds to the EOA adjusted for aortic cross-sectional area. From a hemodynamic viewpoint, Doppler E(L)Co and Gorlin area both reflect the fluid energy loss induced by aortic stenosis, and describe better the increased overload imposed on the left ventricle. Although the Gorlin area and Doppler E(L)Co are equivalent, the latter parameter has the advantage of being measurable non-invasively using Doppler echocardiography.     

Quantification of aortic valve area with ECG-gated multi-detector spiral computed tomography in patients with aortic stenosis and comparison of two image analysis methods

Thirty-three consecutive patients with aortic stenosis underwent a 16-row spiral CT scan. Aortic valve planimetry was performed using two methods: double-oblique reformation (DO) and 2D-curved multiplanar reconstruction using advanced vessel analysis software (VA). The mean aortic valve area determined by transthoracic echocardiography was 0.88+/-0.34 [0.53-1.88] and did not differ significantly from that determined by CT (DO): 0.87+/-0.38 [0.42-1.93] (p=0.75) or CT (VA): 0.87+/-0.38 [0.44-2.00] (p=0.69). This study demonstrates that 16-row spiral CT scan is a feasible, accurate and reproducible method for aortic valve planimetry in patients with aortic stenosis. Both methods show similar accuracy but the VA method takes slightly longer.     

Calculation of aortic valve area by Doppler echocardiography: a direct application of the continuity equation

The continuity equation suggests that a ratio of velocities at two different cardiac valves is inversely proportional to the ratio of cross-sectional areas of the valves. To determine whether a ratio of mitral/aortic valve orifice velocities is useful in determining aortic valve area in patients with aortic stenosis, 10 control subjects and 22 patients with predominant aortic stenosis were examined by Doppler echocardiography. The ratio of (mean diastolic mitral velocity)/(mean systolic aortic velocity), (Vm)/(Va), and the ratio of (mitral diastolic velocity-time integral)/(aortic systolic velocity-time integral), (VTm)/(VTa), were determined from Doppler spectral recordings. Aortic valve area determined at catheterization by the Gorlin equation was the standard of reference. High-quality Doppler recordings were obtained in 30 of 32 subjects (94%). Catheterization documented valve areas of 0.5 to 2.6 (mean 1.1) cm2. There was good correlation between Doppler-determined (Vm)/(Va) and Gorlin valve area (r = .90, SEE = 0.23 cm2); a better correlation was noted between (VTm)/(VTa) and Gorlin valve area (r = .93, SEE = 0.18 cm2). The data demonstrate the usefulness of Doppler alone in the determination of aortic valve area in adults with absent or mild aortic or mitral regurgitation and no mitral stenosis. Although the use of mean velocity and velocity-time integral ratios requires accurate measurement of mitral and aortic velocities, it does not require squaring of these velocities or measurement of the cross-sectional area of flow.     

The complementary role of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of patients with aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare direct planimetry of aortic valve area (AVA) by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), using the continuity equation. METHODS: 15 symptomatic patients with aortic stenosis were studied. AVA was measured with CMR from steady state free precession imaging by planimetry. AVA was also calculated by TTE images using the continuity equation. RESULTS: The evaluation of AVA by both CMR and TTE was possible in twelve out of fifteen patients. CMR was able to determine the AVA in all fifteen patients. AVAs obtained by CMR and TTE were very similar and a good correlation existed between the values obtained by either technique. CONCLUSION: CMR planimetry is highly reliable and reproducible. AVAs obtained by CMR compare well with those obtained by TTE. Therefore, CMR planimetry of AVA with steady state free precession is a useful diagnostic tool, particularly if uncertainty exists.     

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.