Contrast-enhanced computed tomography assessment of aortic stenosis

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) mm 3 /cm 2). 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

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

Serum Lipoprotein(a) and Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Degeneration

AIMS: Bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration demonstrates pathological similarities to aortic stenosis. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a well-recognized risk factor for incident aortic stenosis and disease progression. The aim of this study is to investigate whether serum Lp(a) concentrations are associated with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a post hoc analysis of a prospective multimodality imaging study (NCT02304276), serum Lp(a) concentrations, echocardiography, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) angiography, and 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) positron emission tomography (PET) were assessed in patients with bioprosthetic aortic valves. Patients were also followed up for 2 years with serial echocardiography. Serum Lp(a) concentrations [median 19.9 (8.4-76.4) mg/dL] were available in 97 participants (mean age 75 ± 7 years, 54% men). There were no baseline differences across the tertiles of serum Lp(a) concentrations for disease severity assessed by echocardiography [median peak aortic valve velocity: highest tertile 2.5 (2.3-2.9) m/s vs. lower tertiles 2.7 (2.4-3.0) m/s, P = 0.204], or valve degeneration on CT angiography (highest tertile n = 8 vs. lower tertiles n = 12, P = 0.552) and 18F-NaF PET (median tissue-to-background ratio: highest tertile 1.13 (1.05-1.41) vs. lower tertiles 1.17 (1.06-1.53), P = 0.889]. After 2 years of follow-up, there were no differences in annualized change in bioprosthetic hemodynamic progression [change in peak aortic valve velocity: highest tertile [0.0 (-0.1-0.2) m/s/year vs. lower tertiles 0.1 (0.0-0.2) m/s/year, P = 0.528] or the development of structural valve degeneration. CONCLUSION: Serum lipoprotein(a) concentrations do not appear to be a major determinant or mediator of bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK 'Alert Level 4' phase of the B-MaP-C study

BACKGROUND: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. METHODS: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated 'standard' or 'COVID-altered', in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. FINDINGS: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had 'COVID-altered' management. 'Bridging' endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2-9%) using 'NHS Predict'. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of 'COVID-altered' management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown