Aortic valve imaging using 18F-sodium fluoride: impact of triple motion correction

BACKGROUND: Current (18)F-NaF assessments of aortic valve microcalcification using (18)F-NaF PET/CT are based on evaluations of end-diastolic or cardiac motion-corrected (ECG-MC) images, which are affected by both patient and respiratory motion. We aimed to test the impact of employing a triple motion correction technique (3 × MC), including cardiorespiratory and gross patient motion, on quantitative and qualitative measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with aortic stenosis underwent two repeat 30-min PET aortic valve scans within (29 ± 24) days. We considered three different image reconstruction protocols; an end-diastolic reconstruction protocol (standard) utilizing 25% of the acquired data, an ECG-gated (four ECG gates) reconstruction (ECG-MC), and a triple motion-corrected (3 × MC) dataset which corrects for both cardiorespiratory and patient motion. All datasets were compared to aortic valve calcification scores (AVCS), using the Agatston method, obtained from CT scans using correlation plots. We report SUV(max) values measured in the aortic valve and maximum target-to-background ratios (TBR(max)) values after correcting for blood pool activity. RESULTS: Compared to standard and ECG-MC reconstructions, increases in both SUV(max) and TBR(max) were observed following 3 × MC (SUV(max): Standard = 2.8 ± 0.7, ECG-MC = 2.6 ± 0.6, and 3 × MC = 3.3 ± 0.9; TBR(max): Standard = 2.7 ± 0.7, ECG-MC = 2.5 ± 0.6, and 3 × MC = 3.3 ± 1.2, all p values ≤ 0.05). 3 × MC had improved correlations (R(2) value) to the AVCS when compared to the standard methods (SUV(max): Standard = 0.10, ECG-MC = 0.10, and 3 × MC = 0.20; TBR(max): Standard = 0.20, ECG-MC = 0.28, and 3 × MC = 0.46). CONCLUSION: 3 × MC improves the correlation between the AVCS and SUV(max) and TBR(max) and should be considered in PET studies of aortic valves using (18)F-NaF. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40658-022-00433-7

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