Contrast-enhanced computed tomography assessment of aortic stenosis

Abstract Objectives Non-contrast CT aortic valve calcium scoring ignores the contribution of valvular fibrosis in aortic stenosis. We assessed aortic valve calcific and non-calcific disease using contrast-enhanced CT. Methods This was a post hoc analysis of 164 patients (median age 71 (IQR 66–77) years, 78% male) with aortic stenosis (41 mild, 89 moderate, 34 severe; 7% bicuspid) who underwent echocardiography and contrast-enhanced CT as part of imaging studies. Calcific and non-calcific (fibrosis) valve tissue volumes were quantified and indexed to annulus area, using Hounsfield unit thresholds calibrated against blood pool radiodensity. The fibrocalcific ratio assessed the relative contributions of valve fibrosis and calcification. The fibrocalcific volume (sum of indexed non-calcific and calcific volumes) was compared with aortic valve peak velocity and, in a subgroup, histology and valve weight. Results Contrast-enhanced CT calcium volumes correlated with CT calcium score (r=0.80, p<0.001) and peak aortic jet velocity (r=0.55, p<0.001). The fibrocalcific ratio decreased with increasing aortic stenosis severity (mild: 1.29 (0.98–2.38), moderate: 0.87 (1.48–1.72), severe: 0.47 (0.33–0.78), p<0.001) while the fibrocalcific volume increased (mild: 109 (75–150), moderate: 191 (117–253), severe: 274 (213–344) mm3/cm2). Fibrocalcific volume correlated with ex vivo valve weight (r=0.72, p<0.001). Compared with the Agatston score, fibrocalcific volume demonstrated a better correlation with peak aortic jet velocity (r=0.59 and r=0.67, respectively), particularly in females (r=0.38 and r=0.72, respectively). Conclusions Contrast-enhanced CT assessment of aortic valve calcific and non-calcific volumes correlates with aortic stenosis severity and may be preferable to non-contrast CT when fibrosis is a significant contributor to valve obstruction

Detection and Prediction of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Degeneration.

BACKGROUND: Bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration is increasingly common, often unheralded, and can have catastrophic consequences. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to assess whether 18F-fluoride positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (CT) can detect bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration and predict valve dysfunction. METHODS: Explanted degenerate bioprosthetic valves were examined ex vivo. Patients with bioprosthetic aortic valves were recruited into 2 cohorts with and without prosthetic valve dysfunction and underwent in vivo contrast-enhanced CT angiography, 18F-fluoride PET, and serial echocardiography during 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: All ex vivo, degenerate bioprosthetic valves displayed 18F-fluoride PET uptake that colocalized with tissue degeneration on histology. In 71 patients without known bioprosthesis dysfunction, 14 had abnormal leaflet pathology on CT, and 24 demonstrated 18F-fluoride PET uptake (target-to-background ratio 1.55 [interquartile range (IQR): 1.44 to 1.88]). Patients with increased 18F-fluoride uptake exhibited more rapid deterioration in valve function compared with those without (annualized change in peak transvalvular velocity 0.30 [IQR: 0.13 to 0.61] vs. 0.01 [IQR: -0.05 to 0.16] ms-1/year; p < 0.001). Indeed 18F-fluoride uptake correlated with deterioration in all the conventional echocardiographic measures of valve function assessed (e.g., change in peak velocity, r = 0.72; p < 0.001). Each of the 10 patients who developed new overt bioprosthesis dysfunction during follow-up had evidence of 18F-fluoride uptake at baseline (target-to-background ratio 1.89 [IQR: 1.46 to 2.59]). On multivariable analysis, 18F-fluoride uptake was the only independent predictor of future bioprosthetic dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: 18F-fluoride PET-CT identifies subclinical bioprosthetic valve degeneration, providing powerful prediction of subsequent valvular dysfunction and highlighting patients at risk of valve failure. This technique holds major promise in the diagnosis of valvular degeneration and the surveillance of patients with bioprosthetic valves. (18F-Fluoride Assessment of Aortic Bioprosthesis Durability and Outcome [18F-FAABULOUS]; NCT02304276)

Native Aortic Valve Disease Progression and Bioprosthetic Valve Degeneration in Patients With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Major uncertainties remain regarding disease activity within the retained native aortic valve, and regarding bioprosthetic valve durability, after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We aimed to assess native aortic valve disease activity and bioprosthetic valve durability in patients with TAVI in comparison with subjects with bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS: In a multicenter cross-sectional observational cohort study, patients with TAVI or bioprosthetic SAVR underwent baseline echocardiography, computed tomography angiography, and 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) positron emission tomography. Participants (n=47) were imaged once with 18F-NaF positron emission tomography/computed tomography either at 1 month (n=9, 19%), 2 years (n=22, 47%), or 5 years (16, 34%) after valve implantation. Patients subsequently underwent serial echocardiography to assess for changes in valve hemodynamic performance (change in peak aortic velocity) and evidence of structural valve dysfunction. Comparisons were made with matched patients with bioprosthetic SAVR (n=51) who had undergone the same imaging protocol. RESULTS: In patients with TAVI, native aortic valves demonstrated 18F-NaF uptake around the outside of the bioprostheses that showed a modest correlation with the time from TAVI (r=0.36, P=0.023). 18F-NaF uptake in the bioprosthetic leaflets was comparable between the SAVR and TAVI groups (target-to-background ratio, 1.3 [1.2-1.7] versus 1.3 [1.2-1.5], respectively; P=0.27). The frequencies of imaging evidence of bioprosthetic valve degeneration at baseline were similar on echocardiography (6% versus 8%, respectively; P=0.78), computed tomography (15% versus 14%, respectively; P=0.87), and positron emission tomography (15% versus 29%, respectively; P=0.09). Baseline 18F-NaF uptake was associated with a subsequent change in peak aortic velocity for both TAVI (r=0.7, P<0.001) and SAVR (r=0.7, P<0.001). On multivariable analysis, 18F-NaF uptake was the only predictor of peak velocity progression (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with TAVI, native aortic valves demonstrate evidence of ongoing active disease. Across imaging modalities, TAVI degeneration is of similar magnitude to bioprosthetic SAVR, suggesting comparable midterm durability. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02304276