背景:在患有二叶主动脉瓣膜(BAV)的患者中,各种成像方式对索引主动脉瓣面积(iAVA)和导管插入术得出的平均经主动脉压力梯度(mPGcath)之间的不一致/一致性的影响尚不清楚。本研究旨在比较在BAV和三尖瓣主动脉瓣(TAV)患者中使用四种不同方法获得的iAVA测量值。使用mPGcath作为参考标准。
方法:我们回顾性回顾了接受AS综合评估的患者,包括二维(2D)经胸超声心动图(TTE),三维(3D)经食管超声心动图(TEE),多探测器计算机断层扫描(MDCT),和导管插入术,在2019年至2022年期间在我们的机构。使用连续性方程测量iAVA。(CE)通过2DTTE获得的左心室流出道面积,3DTEE,MDCT,以及平面3DTEE。
结论:在564例患者(64例BAV和500例TAV)中,分析了64对倾向匹配的BAV和TAV患者。iAVACE(2DTTE)导致对AS严重程度(BAV,23.4%;TAV,28.1%)和iAVACE(MDCT)导致低估AS严重程度(BAV,29.3%;TAV,16.7%),而iAVACE(3DTEE)和iAVAPlani(3DTEE)导致AS分级不一致性降低。mPGcath和iAVACE(3DTEE)(BAV,r=-0.63;TAV,r=-0.68),iAVACE(3DTEE)对应于当前指南的截止值(BAV,0.58cm2/m2;TAV,0.60cm2/m2)。在评估AS严重程度时,iAVA和mPGcath之间的不一致/一致性取决于所使用的方法和成像方式。iAVACE(3DTEE)的使用对于调和BAV患者和TAV中不一致的AS分级是有价值的。
BACKGROUND: The impact of various imaging modalities on discordance/concordance between indexed aortic valve area (iAVA) and catheterization-derived mean transaortic pressure gradient (mPGcath) is unclear in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). This study aimed to compare iAVA measurements obtained using four different methodologies in BAV and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) patients, using mPGcath as a reference standard.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent comprehensive assessment of AS, including two-dimensional (2D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), three-dimensional (3D) transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), multidetector computed tomography (MDCT), and catheterization, at our institution between 2019 and 2022. iAVA was measured using the continuity eq. (CE) with left ventricular outflow tract area obtained by 2D TTE, 3D TEE, and MDCT, as well as planimetric 3D TEE.
CONCLUSIONS: Among 564 patients (64 with BAV and 500 with TAV), 64 propensity-matched pairs of patients with BAV and TAV were analyzed. iAVACE(2DTTE) led to overestimation of AS severity (BAV, 23.4%; TAV, 28.1%) and iAVACE(MDCT) led to underestimation of AS severity (BAV, 29.3%; TAV, 16.7%), whereas iAVACE(3DTEE) and iAVAPlani(3DTEE) resulted in a reduction in the discordance of AS grading. A moderate correlation was observed between mPGcath and iAVACE(3DTEE) (BAV, r = -0.63; TAV, r = -0.68), with iAVACE(3DTEE) corresponding to the current guidelines\' cutoff value (BAV, 0.58 cm2/m2; TAV, 0.60 cm2/m2). Discordance/concordance between iAVA and mPGcath in evaluating AS severity varies depending on the methodology and imaging modality used. The use of iAVACE(3DTEE) is valuable for reconciling the discordant AS grading in BAV patients as well as TAV.