Central aortic valve coaptation area during diastole as seen by 64-multidetector computed tomography (MDCT)

As multiple new procedures now require better visualization of the aortic valve, we sought to better define the central aortic valve coaptation area seen during diastole on multi-detector row cardiac computed tomography (MDCT). 64-MDCT images of 384 symptomatic consecutive patients referred for coronary artery disease evaluation were included in the study. Planimetric measurements of this area were performed on cross-sectional views of the aortic valve at 75% phase of the cardiac cycle. Planimetric measurement of central regurgitation orifice area (ROA) seen in patients with aortic regurgitation and Hounsfield units of the central aortic valve coaptation area were performed. Mean area of the central aortic valve coaptation area was 5.34 ± 5.19 mm2 and Hounsfield units in this area were 123.69 ± 31.31 HU. The aortic valve coaptation area (mm2) measurement in patients without AR was: 4.90 ± 0.17 and in patients with AR: 10.53 ± 0.26 (P = <0.05). On Bland–Altman analysis a very good correlation between central aortic valve coaptation area and central ROA was found (r = 0.80, P = <0.001). Central aortic valve coaptation area is a central area present at the coaptation of nodules of arantius of aortic cusps during diastole; it is incompetent and increased in size in patients with aortic regurgitation

Optimal phase for coronary interpretations and correlation of ejection fraction using late-diastole and end-diastole imaging in cardiac computed tomography angiography: implications for prospective triggering

A typical acquisition protocol for multi-row detector computed tomography (MDCT) angiography is to obtain all phases of the cardiac cycle, allowing calculation of ejection fraction (EF) simultaneously with plaque burden. New MDCT protocols scanner, designed to reduce radiation, use prospectively acquired ECG gated image acquisition to obtain images at certain specific phases of the cardiac cycle with least coronary artery motion. These protocols do not we allow acquisition of functional data which involves measurement of ejection fraction requiring end-systolic and end-diastolic phases. We aimed to quantitatively identify the cardiac cycle phase that produced the optimal images as well as aimed to evaluate, if obtaining only 35% (end-systole) and 75% (as a surrogate for end-diastole) would be similar to obtaining the full cardiac cycle and calculating end diastolic volumes (EDV) and EF from the 35th and 95th percentile images. 1,085 patients with no history of coronary artery disease were included; 10 images separated by 10% of R–R interval were retrospectively constructed. Images with motion in the mid portion of RCA were graded from 1 to 3; with ‘1’ being no motion, ‘2’ if 0 to <1 mm motion, and ‘3’ if there is >1 mm motion and/or non-interpretable study. In a subgroup of 216 patients with EF > 50%, we measured left ventricular (LV) volumes in the 10 phases, and used those obtained during 25, 35, 75 and 95% phase to calculate the EF for each patient. The average heart rate (HR) for our patient group was 56.5 ± 8.4 (range 33–140). The distribution of image quality at all heart rates was 958 (88.3%) in Grade 1, 113 (10.42%) in Grade 2 and 14 (1.29%) in Grade 3 images. The area under the curve for optimum image quality (Grade 1 or 2) in patients with HR > 60 bpm for phase 75% was 0.77 ± 0.04 [95% CI: 0.61–0.87], while for similar heart rates the area under the curve for phases 75 + 65 + 55 + 45% combined was 0.92 ± 0.02. LV volume at 75% phase was strongly correlated with EDV (LV volume at 95% phase) (r = 0.970, P < 0.001). There was also a strong correlation between LVEF (75_35) and LVEF (95_35) (r = 0.93, P < 0.001). Subsequently, we developed a formula to correct for the decrement in LVEF using 35–75% phase: LVEF (95_35) = 0.783 × LVEF (75_35) + 20.68; adjusted R2 = 0.874, P < 0.001. Using 64 MDCT scanners, in order to acquire >90% interpretable studies, if HR < 60 bpm 75% phase of RR interval provides optimal images; while for HR > 60 analysis of images in 4 phases (75, 35, 45 and 55%) is needed. Our data demonstrates that LVEF can be predicted with reasonable accuracy by using data acquired in phases 35 and 75% of the R–R interval. Future prospective acquisition that obtains two phases (35 and 75%) will allow for motion free images of the coronary arteries and EF estimates in over 90% of patients

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection