Current Indications for Surgical Repair in Patients with Bicuspid Aortic Valve and Ascending Aortic Ectasia

Preventive surgical repair of the moderately dilated ascending aorta/aortic root in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is controversial. Most international reference centers are currently proposing a proactive approach for BAV patients with a maximum ascending aortic/root diameter of 45 mm since the risk of dissection/rupture raises significantly with an aneurysm diameter >50 mm. Current guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the joint guidelines of the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) recommend elective repair in symptomatic patients with dysfunctional BAV (aortic diameter ≥45 mm). In asymptomatic patients with a well-functioning BAV, elective repair is recommended for diameters ≥50 mm, or if the aneurysm is rapidly progressing (rate of 5 mm/year), or in case of a strong family history of dissection/rupture/sudden death, or with planned pregnancy. As diameter is likely not the most reliable predictor of rupture and dissection and the majority of BAV patients may never experience an aortic catastrophe at small diameters, an overly aggressive approach almost certainly will put some patients with BAV unnecessarily at risk of operative and early mortality. This paper discusses the indications for preventive, elective repair of the aortic root, and ascending aorta in patients with a BAV and a moderately dilated—or ectatic—ascending aorta

Grading of aortic regurgitation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance and pulsed Doppler of the left subclavian artery: harmonizing grading scales between imaging modalities

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) are current standard for assessing aortic regurgitation (AR). Regurgitant fraction (RF) can also be estimated by Doppler examination of the left subclavian artery (LSA-Doppler). However, a comparison of AR grading scales using these methods and a TTE multiparametric approach as reference is lacking. We evaluated the severity of AR in 73 patients (58 ± 15 years; 57 men), with a wide spectrum of AR of the native valve. Using a recommended TTE multiparametric approach the AR was divided in none/trace (n = 12), mild (n = 23), moderate (n = 12), and severe (n = 26). RF was evaluated by LSA-Doppler (ratio between diastolic and systolic velocity-time integrals) and by CMR phase-contrast imaging (performed in the aorta 1 cm above the aortic valve); the grading scales were then calculated. There were a good correlation between all methods, but mean RF values were greater with TTE compared with LSA-Doppler and CMR (39 ± 16% vs. 35 ± 18% vs. 32 ± 20%, respectively; p < 0.037). Mean differences in RF values between methods were significant in the groups with mild and moderate AR. Grading scales that best defined the TTE derived AR severity using CMR were: mild, < 21%; moderate, 22 to 41%; and severe, > 42%; and using LSA-Doppler: mild, < 29%; moderate, 30 to 44%; and severe, > 45%. RF values for AR grading using TTE, LSA-Doppler and CMR correlate well but differ in groups with mild and moderate AR when using a recognized multiparametric echocardiographic approach. Clinical prospective studies should validate these proposed modality adjusted grading scales

Quantification of regurgitation in mitral valve prolapse with four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Background: Four-dimensional cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) flow assessment (4D flow) allows to derive volumetric quantitative parameters in mitral regurgitation (MR) using retrospective valve tracking. However, prior studies have been conducted in functional MR or in patients with congenital heart disease, thus, data regarding the usefulness of 4D flow CMR in case of a valve pathology like mitral valve prolapse (MVP) are scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of cine-guided valve segmentation of 4D flow CMR in assessment of MR in MVP when compared to standardized routine CMR and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). Methods: Six healthy subjects and 54 patients (55 ± 16 years; 47 men) with MVP were studied. TTE severity grading used a multiparametric approach resulting in mild/mild-moderate (n = 12), moderate-severe (n = 12), and severe MR (n = 30). Regurgitant volume (RVol) and regurgitant fraction (RF) were also derived using standard volumetric CMR and 4D flow CMR datasets with direct measurement of regurgitant flow (4DFdirect) and indirect calculation using the formula: mitral valve forward flow - left ventricular outflow tract stroke volume (4DFindirect). Results: There was moderate to strong correlation between methods (r = 0.59–0.84, p < 0.001), but TTE proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) method showed higher RVol as compared with CMR techniques (PISA vs. CMR, mean difference of 15.8 ml [95% CI 9.9–21.6]; PISA vs. 4DFindirect, 17.2 ml [8.4–25.9]; PISA vs. 4DFdirect, 27.9 ml [19.1–36.8]; p < 0.001). Only indirect CMR methods (CMR vs. 4DFindirect) showed moderate to substantial agreement (Lin’s coefficient 0.92–0.97) without significant bias (mean bias 1.05 ± 26 ml [− 50 to 52], p = 0.757). Intra- and inter-observer reliability were good to excellent for all methods (ICC 0.87–0.99), but with numerically lower coefficient of variation for indirect CMR methods (2.5 to 12%). Conclusions: In the assessment of patients with MR and MVP, cine-guided valve segmentation 4D flow CMR is feasible and comparable to standard CMR, but with lower RVol when TTE is used as reference. 4DFindirect quantification has higher intra- and inter-technique agreement than 4DFdirect quantification and might be used as an adjunctive technique for cross-checking MR quantification in MVP.ISSN:1097-6647ISSN:1532-429

Quantification of regurgitation in mitral valve prolapse with automated real time echocardiographic 3D proximal isovelocity surface area: multimodality consistency and role of eccentricity index

Three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (3D-TTE) provides a semi-automated proximal isovelocity surface area method (3D-PISA) to obtain quantitative parameters. Data assessing regurgitation severity in mitral valve prolapse (MVP) are scarce, so we assessed the 3D-PISA method compared with 2D-PISA and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and the role of an eccentricity index. We evaluated the 3D-PISA method for assessing MR in 54 patients with MVP (57 ± 14 years; 42 men; 12 mild/mild-moderate; 12 moderate-severe; and 30 severe MR). Role of an asymmetric (i.e. eccentricity index ≥ 1.25) flow convergence region (FCR) and inter-modality consistency were then assessed. 3D-PISA derived regurgitant volume (RVol) showed a good correlation with 2D-PISA and CMR derived parameters (r = 0.86 and r = 0.81, respectively). The small mean differences with 2D-PISA derived RVol did not reach statistical significance in overall population (5.7 ± 23 ml, 95% CI - 0.6 to 12; p = 0.08) but differed in those with asymmetric 3D-FCR (n = 21; 2D-PISA: 72 ± 36 ml vs. 3D-PISA: 93 ± 47 ml; p = 0.001). RVol mean values were higher using PISA methods (CMR 57 ± 33 ml; 2D-PISA 73 ± 39 ml; and 3D-PISA 79 ± 45 ml) and an overestimation was observed when CMR was used as reference (2D-PISA vs. CMR: mean difference: 15.8 ml [95% CI 10-22, p &amp;lt; 0.001]; and 3D-PISA vs. CMR: 21.5 ml [95% CI 14-29, p &amp;lt; 0.001]). Intra- and inter-observer reliability was excellent (ICC 0.91-0.99), but with numerically lower coefficient of variation for 3D-PISA (8%-10% vs. 2D-PISA: 12%-16%). 3D-PISA method for assessing regurgitation in MVP may enable analogous evaluation compared to standard 2D-PISA, but with overestimation in case of asymmetric FCR or when CMR is used as reference method