Three-Dimensional Imaging of the Left Ventricular Outflow Tract: Impact on Aortic Valve Area Estimation by the Continuity Equation

Indexed aortic valve area using multimodality imaging for assessing the severity of bicuspid aortic stenosis

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.

RESULTS AND 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.

Impact of stroke volume assessment by three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography on the classification of low-gradient aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Accurate assessment of flow status is crucial in low-gradient aortic stenosis (AS). However, the clinical implication of three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3DTEE) on flow status evaluation remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the assessment of flow status using 3D TEE in low-gradient AS patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients diagnosed with low-gradient AS and preserved ejection fraction at our institution between 2019 and 2022. Patients were categorized into low-flow/low-gradient (LF-LG) AS or normal-flow/low-gradient (NF-LG) AS based on two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (2DTTE). We compared the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) geometry between the two groups and reclassified them using stroke volume index (SVi) obtained by 3DTEE.

RESULTS

Among 173 patients (105 with LF-LG AS and 68 with NF-LG AS), 54 propensity-matched pairs of patients were analyzed. 3DTEE-derived ellipticity index of LVOT was significantly higher in LF-LG AS patients compared to NF-LG AS patients (p = 0.012). We assessed the discordance in flow status classification between SVi2DTTE and SVi3DTEE in both groups using a cutoff value of 35 ml/m2. The LF-LG AS group exhibited a significantly higher discordance rate compared to the NF-LG AS group, with rates of 50% and 2%, respectively. The optimal cutoff values of SVi3DTEE for identifying low flow status, based on 2DTTE-derived cutoff values, were determined to be 43 ml/m2.

CONCLUSIONS

LVOT ellipticity in low-gradient AS patients varies depending on flow status, and this difference contributes to discrepancies between SVi3DTEE and SVi2DTTE, particularly in LF-LG AS patients. Utilizing SVi3DTEE is valuable for accurately assessing flow status.

Use of two- and three-dimensional echocardiography for assessment of the left ventricular outflow tract and aortic orifice areas in dogs

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

In clinical practice, dogs are screened for subaortic stenosis (SAS) using two-dimensional (2DE) and Doppler echocardiography. There is no accepted antemortem diagnostic criterion to distinguish between mild SAS and unaffected, therefore additional means of evaluating the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) and aorta may be desirable. This study sought to determine and compare LVOT and aortic orifice areas using 2DE and three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) in apparently healthy dogs of various breeds and somatotypes.

ANIMALS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS

Sixty-nine healthy, privately-owned dogs. The LVOT and aortic orifice areas were determined using 2DE aortic valve (AV) diameter-derived area; the continuity equation (CE); and 3DE planimetry of the LVOT, AV, sinus of Valsalva, and sinotubular junction. Orifice areas were indexed to body surface area (BSA).

RESULTS

Obtaining 3DE images and performing planimetry were feasible in all dogs. The mean indexed area measured using the 2DE AV diameter (2.85 cm2/m2) was significantly lower than that derived from 3DE AV planimetry (3.85 cm2/m2; mean difference, 1.00 cm2/m2; P<0.001). There was poor agreement between the effective area calculated using the CE and the anatomic areas calculated using 2DE AV diameter and 3DE planimetry. The area calculated using the CE was less than all other calculations of area. Interobserver and intraobserver repeatability and reproducibility for 3DE planimetry were excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

Methods for determining aortic orifice areas in dogs are not interchangeable, and this must be taken into account if these methods are investigated in the evaluation of dogs with SAS in the future.

Diagnostic Challenges in Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most prevalent degenerative valvular disease in western countries. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is considered, nowadays, to be the main imaging technique for the work-up of AS due to high availability, safety, low cost, and excellent capacity to evaluate aortic valve (AV) morphology and function. Despite the diagnosis of AS being considered straightforward for a very long time, based on high gradients and reduced aortic valve area (AVA), many patients with AS represent a real dilemma for cardiologist. On the one hand, the acoustic window may be inadequate and the TTE limited in some cases. On the other hand, a growing body of evidence shows that patients with low gradients (due to systolic dysfunction, concentric hypertrophy or coexistence of another valve disease such as mitral stenosis or regurgitation) may develop severe AS (low-flow low-gradient severe AS) with a similar or even worse prognosis. The use of complementary imaging techniques such as transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), multidetector computed tomography (MDTC), or cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) plays a key role in such scenarios. The aim of this review is to summarize the diagnostic challenges associated with patients with AS and the advantages of a comprehensive multimodality cardiac imaging (MCI) approach to reach a precise grading of the disease, a crucial factor to warrant an adequate management of patients.

Multimodality imaging for the global evaluation of aortic stenosis: The valve, the ventricle, the afterload

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease growing in parallel to the increment of life expectancy. Besides the valve, the degenerative process affects the aorta, impairing its elastic properties and leading to increased systemic resistance. The composite of valvular and systemic afterload mediates ventricular damage. The first step of a thorough evaluation of AS should include a detailed assessment of valvular anatomy and hemodynamics. Subsequently, the ventricle, and the global afterload should be assessed to define disease stage and prognosis. Multimodality imaging is of paramount importance for the comprehensive evaluation of these three elements. Echocardiography is the cornerstone modality whereas Multi-Detector Computed Tomography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance provide useful complementary information. This review comprehensively examines the merits of these imaging modalities in AS for the evaluation of the valve, the ventricle, and the afterload and ultimately endeavors to integrate them in a holistic assessment of AS.

Improving accuracy in diagnosing aortic stenosis severity: An in-depth analysis of echocardiographic measurement error through literature review and simulation study

AIMS

The present guidelines advise replacing the aortic valve for individuals with severe aortic stenosis (AS) based on various echocardiographic parameters. Accurate measurements are essential to avoid misclassification and unnecessary interventions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of measurement error on the echocardiographic evaluation of the severity of AS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic review was performed to examine whether measurement errors are reported in studies focusing on the prognostic value of peak aortic jet velocity (Vmax ), mean pressure gradient (MPG), and effective orifice area (EOA) in asymptomatic patients with AS. Out of the 37 studies reviewed, 17 (46%) acknowledged the existence of measurement errors, but none of them utilized methods to address them. Secondly, the magnitude of potential errors was collected from available literature for use in clinical simulations. Interobserver variability ranged between 0.9% and 8.3% for Vmax and MPG but was higher for EOA (range 7.7%-12.7%), indicating lower reliability. Assuming a circular left ventricular outflow tract area led to a median underestimation of EOA by 23% compared to planimetry by other modalities. A clinical simulation resulted in the reclassification of 42% of patients, shifting them from a diagnosis of severe AS to moderate AS.

CONCLUSIONS

Measurement errors are underreported in studies on echocardiographic assessment of AS severity. These errors can lead to misclassification and misdiagnosis. Clinicians and scientists should be aware of the implications for accurate clinical decision-making and assuring research validity.

Low-flow, Low-gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Review

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a common valve pathology experienced by patients worldwide. There are limited population-based studies assessing its prevalence; however, epidemiological studies emphasize that the burden of disease is growing. Recognizing AS relies on accurate clinical assessment and diagnostic investigations. Patients who develop severe AS are often referred to the heart team for assessment of aortic valve intervention. Although echocardiography has traditionally been used to screen and monitor the progression of AS, there can be discordance between measurements in a low-flow state. Such patients may have truly severe AS and potentially derive long-term benefit from aortic valve intervention. Accurately identifying these patients with the use of ancillary testing has been the focus of research for several years. In this article, we discuss the contemporary approaches and challenges in identifying and managing patients with low-flow, low-gradient severe AS.

Recommendations for the Use of Echocardiography in the Evaluation of Rheumatic Heart Disease: A Report from the American Society of Echocardiography

Acute rheumatic fever and its chronic sequela, rheumatic heart disease (RHD), pose major health problems globally, and remain the most common cardiovascular disease in children and young people worldwide. Echocardiography is the most important diagnostic tool in recognizing this preventable and treatable disease and plays an invaluable role in detecting the presence of subclinical disease needing prompt therapy or follow-up assessment. This document provides recommendations for the comprehensive use of echocardiography in the diagnosis and therapeutic intervention of RHD. Echocardiographic diagnosis of RHD is made when typical findings of valvular and subvalvular abnormalities are seen, including commissural fusion, leaflet thickening, and restricted leaflet mobility, with varying degrees of calcification. The mitral valve is predominantly affected, most often leading to mitral stenosis. Mixed valve disease and associated cardiopulmonary pathology are common. The severity of valvular lesions and hemodynamic effects on the cardiac chambers and pulmonary artery pressures should be rigorously examined. It is essential to take advantage of all available modalities of echocardiography to obtain accurate anatomic and hemodynamic details of the affected valve lesion(s) for diagnostic and strategic pre-treatment planning. Intraprocedural echocardiographic guidance is critical during catheter-based or surgical treatment of RHD, as is echocardiographic surveillance for post-intervention complications or disease progression. The role of echocardiography is indispensable in the entire spectrum of RHD management.

Quantification of Significant Aortic Stenosis by Echocardiography versus Four-Dimensional Cardiac Computed Tomography: A Multi-Modality Imaging Study

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) grading of aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging when parameters are discrepant, and four-dimensional cardiac computed tomography (4D-CCT) is increasingly utilized for transcatheter intervention workup. We compared TTE and 4D-CCT measures contributing to AS quantification. AS patients (n = 80, age 86 ± 10 years, 71% men) referred for transcatheter replacement in 2014−2017 were retrospectively studied, 20 each with high-gradient AS (HG-AS), classical and paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS (CLFLG-AS and PLFLG-AS), and normal-flow low-gradient AS (NFLG-AS). Correlation and Bland−Altman analyses were performed between TTE and 4D-CCT parameters. There were moderate-to-high TTE versus 4D-CCT correlations for left ventricular volumes, function, mass, and outflow tract dimensions (r = 0.51−0.88), though values were mostly significantly higher by 4D-CCT (p < 0.001). Compared with 4D-CCT planimetry of aortic valve area (AVA), TTE estimates had modest correlation (r = 0.37−0.43) but were significantly lower (by 0.15−0.32 cm2). The 4D-CCT estimate of LVSVi lead to significant reclassification of AS subtype defined by TTE. In conclusion, 4D-CCT quantified values were higher than TTE for the left ventricle and AVA, and the AS subtype was reclassified based on LVSVi by 4D-CCT, warranting further research to establish its clinical implications and optimal thresholds in severe AS management.

Core Lab Adjudication of the ACURATE neo2 Hemodynamic Performance Using Computed-Tomography-Corrected Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Area

(1) Background: Hemodynamic assessment of prosthetic heart valves using conventional 2D transthoracic Echocardiography-Doppler (2D-TTE) has limitations. Of those, left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) area measurement is one of the major limitations of the continuity equation, which assumes a circular LVOT. (2) Methods: This study comprised 258 patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), who were treated with the ACURATE neo2. The LVOT area and its dependent Doppler-derived parameters, including effective orifice area (EOA) and stroke volume (SV), in addition to their indexed values, were calculated from post-TAVI 2D-TTE. In addition, the 3D-LVOT area from pre-procedural MDCT scans was obtained and used to calculate corrected Doppler-derived parameters. The incidence rates of prosthesis patient mismatch (PPM) were compared between the 2D-TTE and MDCT-based methods (3) Results: The main results show that the 2D-TTE measured LVOT is significantly smaller than 3D-MDCT (350.4 ± 62.04 mm² vs. 405.22 ± 81.32 mm²) (95% Credible interval (CrI) of differences: −55.15, −36.09), which resulted in smaller EOA (2.25 ± 0.59 vs. 2.58 ± 0.63 cm²) (Beta = −0.642 (95%CrI of differences: −0.85, −0.43), and lower SV (73.88 ± 21.41 vs. 84.47 ± 22.66 mL), (Beta = −7.29 (95% CrI: −14.45, −0.14)), respectively. PPM incidence appears more frequent with 2D-TTE- than 3D-MDCT-corrected measurements (based on the EOAi) 8.52% vs. 2.32%, respectively. In addition, significant differences regarding the EOA among the three valve sizes (S, M and L) were seen only with the MDCT, but not on 2D-TTE. (4) Conclusions: The corrected continuity equation by combining the 3D-LVOT area from MDCT with the TTE Doppler parameters might provide a more accurate assessment of hemodynamic parameters and PPM diagnosis in patients treated with TAVI. The ACURATE neo2 THV has a large EOA and low incidence of PPM using the 3D-corrected LVOT area than on 2D-TTE. These findings need further confirmation on long-term follow-up and in other studies.

Calculation of Aortic VAlve and LVOT Areas by a Modified Continuity Equation Using Different Echocardiography Methods: The CAVALIER Study

Background: The area of the left ventricular outflow tract (A_LVOT) represents a major component of the continuity equation (CE), which is, i.a., crucial to calculate the aortic valve (AV) area (A_AV). The A_LVOT is typically calculated using 2D echo assessments as the measured anterior–posterior (a/p) extension, assuming a round LVOT base. Anatomically, however, usually an elliptical shape of the LVOT base is present, with the long diameter extending from the medial–lateral axis (m/l), which is not recognized by two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography. Objective: We aimed to compare standard and three-dimensional (3D)-echocardiography-derived A_LVOT calculation and its use in a standard CE (CE_std) and a modified CE (CE_mod) to calculate the A_AV vs. computed tomography (CT) multi-planar reconstruction (MPR) measurements of the anatomical A_LVOT, and A_AV, respectively. Methods: Patients were selected if 3D transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), and cardiac CT were all performed, and imaging quality was adequate. The A_LVOT was assessed using 2D calculation, (a/p only), 3D-volume MPR, and 3D-biplane calculation (a/p and m/l). A_AV was measured using both CE_std and CE_mod, and 3D-volume MPR. Data were compared to corresponding CT analyses. Results: From 2017 to 2018, 107 consecutive patients with complete and adequate imaging data were included. The calculated A_LVOT was smaller when assessed by 2D- compared to both 3D-volume MPR and 3D-biplane calculation. Calculated A_AV was correspondingly smaller in CE_std compared to CE_mod or 3D-volume MPR. The A_LVOT and A_AV, using data from 3D echocardiography, highly correlated and were congruent with corresponding measurements in CT. Conclusion: Due to the elliptic shape of the LVOT, use of measurements and calculations based on 2D echocardiography systematically underestimates the A_LVOT and dependent areas, such as the A_AV. Anatomically correct assessment can be achieved using 3D echocardiography and adapted calculations, such as CE_mod.

Comparison of Simultaneous Transthoracic Versus Transesophageal Echocardiography for Assessment of Aortic Stenosis

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the gold standard for aortic stenosis (AS) assessment. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) provides better resolution, but its effect on AS assessment is unclear. To answer this question, we studied 56 patients with ≥moderate AS. Initial TTE (TTE1) was followed by conscious sedation with simultaneous TEE and TTE2. Based on conservative versus actionable implication, AS types were dichotomized into group A, comprising moderate and normal-flow low-gradient, and group B, comprising high gradient, low ejection fraction low-flow low-gradient, and paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS. Paired analysis of echocardiographic variables and AS types measured by TEE versus TTE2 and by TEE versus TTE1 was performed. TEE versus simultaneous TTE2 comparison demonstrated higher mean gradients (31.7 ± 10.5 vs 27.4 ± 10.5 mm Hg) and velocities (359 ± 60.6 vs 332 ± 63.1 cm/s) with TEE, but lower left ventricular outflow velocity-time-integral (VTI₁) (18.6 ± 5.1 vs 20.2 ± 6.1 cm), all p <0.001. This resulted in a lower aortic valve area (0.8 ± 0.21 vs 0.87 ± 0.28 cm²), p <0.001, and a net relative risk of 1.86 of group A to B upgrade. TEE versus (awake state) TTE1 comparison revealed a larger decrease in VTI₁ because of a higher initial awake state VTI₁ (22 ± 5.6 cm), resulting in similar Doppler-velocity-index and aortic valve area decrease with TEE, despite a slight increase in mean gradients of 0.8 mm Hg (confidence interval -1.44 to 3.04) and velocities of 10 cm/s (confidence interval -1.5 to 23.4). This translated into a net relative risk of 1.92 of group A to B upgrade versus TTE1. In conclusion, TEE under conscious sedation overestimates AS severity compared with both awake state TTE and simultaneous sedation state TTE, accounted for by different Doppler insonation angles obtained in transapical versus transgastric position.

Multimodality imaging in aortic stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common cardiac valve lesion in the adult population, with an incidence increasing as the population ages. Accurate assessment of AS severity is necessary for clinical decision-making. Echocardiography is currently the diagnostic method of choice for assessing and managing AS. Transthoracic echocardiography is usually sufficient in most situations. Transesophageal echocardiography and stress echocardiography may also be utilized when there is inadequate image quality and/or discordance in the results and the clinical presentation. There is a role for other imaging modalities such as cardiac computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and catheterization in selected cases. The following describes in some detail the role of these modalities in the diagnosis and assessment of AS.

Application of the proximal isovelocity surface area method for estimation of the effective orifice area in aortic stenosis

Although the echocardiographic effective orifice area (EOA) calculated using the continuity equation is widely used for the assessment of severity in aortic stenosis (AS), the existence of high flow velocity at the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) potentially causes its overestimation. The proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) method could be an alternative tool for the estimation of EOA that limits the influence of upstream flow velocity. EOA was calculated using the continuity equation (EOA_Cont) and PISA method (EOA_PISA), respectively, in 114 patients with at least moderate AS. The geometric orifice area (GOA) was also measured using the planimetry method in 51 patients who also underwent three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography. Patients were divided into two groups according to the median LVOT flow velocity. EOA_PISA could be obtained in 108 of the 114 patients (95%). Although there was a strong correlation between EOA_Cont and EOA_PISA (r = 0.78, P < 0.001), EOA_Cont was statistically significantly larger than EOA_PISA (0.86 ± 0.33 vs 0.75 ± 0.29 cm², P < 0.001). Both EOA_Cont and EOA_PISA similarly correlated with GOA (r = 0.70, P < 0.001 and r = 0.77, P < 0.001, respectively). However, a fixed bias, which is hydrodynamically supposed to exist between EOA and GOA, was not observed between EOA_Cont and GOA. In contrast, there was a negative fixed bias between EOA_PISA and GOA with smaller EOA_PISA than GOA. The difference between EOA_Cont and GOA was significantly greater with a larger EOA_Cont relative to GOA in patients with high LVOT flow velocity than in those without (0.16 ± 0.25 vs - 0.07 ± 0.10 cm², P < 0.001). In contrast, the difference between EOA_PISA and GOA was consistent regardless of the LVOT flow velocity (- 0.07 ± 0.12 vs - 0.07 ± 0.15 cm², P = 0.936). The PISA method was applied to estimate EOA in patients with AS. EOA_PISA could be an alternative parameter for AS severity grading in patients with high LVOT flow velocity in whom EOA_Cont would potentially overestimate the orifice area.

Higher rate of aortic stenosis progression in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve - A single center experience

PURPOSE

We sought to investigate aortic stenosis (AS) progression rate (pr) with the comparison between bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) morphology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We compared ASpr in patients with BAV and TAV examined by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in the years 2004-2019.

RESULTS

Data from 363 TTEs in 161 AS patients (median age 70 [61-77] years; 63% men; 25% with BAV; 20% with severe AS) performed at different time points (median time interval 10 months) was analyzed. We assessed changes of AS severity with peak velocity through aortic valve (Vmax), mean/peak pressure gradients (MG/PG), aortic valve area by planimetry and continuity equation (AVAce). We compared pr (defined as parameter change per year) between the BAV and the TAV groups. BAV patients showed faster ASpr with odds ratio 3.467 and 95% confidence intervals 1.36 to 8.86, moreover, expressed as a quicker AVAce decrease 0 (-0.4-0.0) in the BAV vs. 0 (-0.15 - 0.0) cm²/year in the TAV group, p ​= ​0.02. Furthermore, in BAV, female sex was associated with lower ASpr (p ​= ​0.01), and in the whole group a larger aortic diameter was a predictor of faster progression (p ​< ​0.001).

CONCLUSION

The ASpr, expressed as a decrease in the AVAce, was faster in BAV. Moreover, ASpr depends on both: valve morphology being faster in BAV and Vmax increase. Furthermore, the female sex was related to slower pace of AVA reduction in BAV subgroup whereas the larger baseline aortic diameter associated to faster AS progression in the whole studied group.

Association between multimodality measures of aortic stenosis severity and quality-of-life improvement outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

AIMS

Up to 40% of patients with aortic stenosis (AS) present with discordant grading of AS severity based on common transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) measures. Our aim was to evaluate the utility of TTE and multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) measures in predicting symptomatic improvement in patients with AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A retrospective review of 201 TAVR patients from January 2017 to November 2018 was performed. Pre- and post-intervention quality-of-life was measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12). Pre-intervention measures including dimensionless index (DI), stroke volume index (SVI), mean transaortic gradient, peak transaortic velocity, indexed aortic valve area (AVA), aortic valve calcium score, and AVA based on hybrid MDCT-Doppler calculations were obtained and correlated with change in KCCQ-12 at 30-day follow-up. Among the 201 patients studied, median KCCQ-12 improved from 54.2 pre-intervention to 85.9 post-intervention. In multivariable analysis, patients with a mean gradient >40 mmHg experienced significantly greater improvement in KCCQ-12 at follow-up than those with mean gradient ≤40 mmHg (28.1 vs. 16.4, P = 0.015). Patients with MDCT-Doppler-calculated AVA of ≤1.2 cm2 had greater improvements in KCCQ-12 scores than those with computed tomography-measured AVA of >1.2 cm2 (23.4 vs. 14.1, P = 0.049) on univariate but not multivariable analysis. No association was detected between DI, SVI, peak velocity, calcium score, or AVA index and change in KCCQ-12.

CONCLUSION

Mean transaortic gradient is predictive of improvement in quality-of-life after TAVR. This measure of AS severity may warrant greater relative consideration when selecting the appropriateness of patients for TAVR.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch defined by cardiac computed tomography versus echocardiography after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUNDS

Evaluation of prosthesis-patient mismatch (P-PM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) has provided conflicting results regarding its impact on outcomes. Whether post-TAVR computed tomography angiography (CTA) evaluation of P-PM can improve our understanding is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the inter-modality (TTE vs. CTA) agreement, inter-valve platform (balloon-expanding valve [BEV] vs. self-expandable valve [SEV]) differences in P-PM severity, and outcomes related to P-PM after TAVR.

METHODS

We analyzed patients with both CTA and TTE before and after TAVR. Indexed effective orifice area was calculated using two methods: TTE-derived left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) area from measured diameter and post-TAVR CTA-measured area. Body size specific cut-offs for P-PM severity were used: for body mass index (BMI) ​< ​30 ​kg/m², moderate ​= ​0.66-0.85 ​cm²/m² and severe≤0.65 ​cm²/m²; for BMI ≥30 ​kg/m², moderate ​= ​0.56-0.70 ​cm²/m² and severe≤0.55 ​cm²/m².

RESULTS

A total of 447 patients were included (median age, 83 years; 54% male). The prevalence of P-PM (moderate or severe) was lower with CTA vs. TTE (3.5% vs. 19.5%, p ​< ​0.001). The prevalence of P-PM measured by TTE was more common in BEV compared to SEV (p ​= ​0.002), while CTA assessment showed no difference in P-PM incidence and severity between TAVR platforms (p ​= ​0.40). In multivariable analysis, CTA-defined but not TTE-defined P-PM was associated with mortality after TAVR (HR:3.97; 95%CI,1.55-10.2; p ​= ​0.004). Both CTA-defined and TTE-defined P-PM were associated with the composite of death and heart failure rehospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Although post-TAVR CTA substantially downgraded the prevalence of P-PM compared to TTE, it identified a subset of patients with clinically relevant P-PM which associated with outcomes.

Assessment of left ventricular outflow tract and aortic root: comparison of 2D and 3D transthoracic echocardiography with multidetector computed tomography

AIMS

Accurate echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) and the aortic root is necessary for risk stratification and choice of appropriate treatment in patients with pathologies of the aortic valve and aortic root. Conventional 2D transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) assessment is based on the assumption of a circular shaped LVOT and aortic root, although previous studies have indicated a more ellipsoid shape. 3D TTE and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) applies planimetry and are not dependent on geometrical assumptions. The aim was to test accuracy, feasibility, and reproducibility of 3D TTE compared to 2D TTE assessment of LVOT and aortic root areas, with MDCT as reference.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined 51 patients with 2D/3D TTE and MDCT at the same day. All patients were re-examined with 2D/3D TTE on a different day to evaluate 2D and 3D re-test variability. Areas of LVOT, aortic annulus, and sinus were assessed using 2D, 3D TTE, and MDCT. Both 2D/3D TTE underestimated the areas compared to MDCT; however, 3D TTE areas were significantly closer to MDCT-areas. 2D vs. 3D mean MDCT-differences: LVOT 1.61 vs. 1.15 cm2, P = 0.019; aortic annulus 1.96 vs. 1.06 cm2, P < 0.001; aortic sinus 1.66 vs. 1.08 cm2, P = 0.015. Feasibility was 3D 76-79% and 2D 88-90%. LVOT and aortic annulus areas by 3D TTE had lowest variabilities; intraobserver coefficient of variation (CV) 9%, re-test variation CV 18-20%.

CONCLUSION

Estimation of LVOT and aortic root areas using 3D TTE is feasible, more precise and more accurate than 2D TTE.

The Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Changes in Size and Shape From Pre- to Post-Cardiopulmonary Bypass: Three-Dimensional Transesophageal Echocardiography

OBJECTIVES

To compare two-dimensional (2D) and 3D imaging of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) and to evaluate geometric changes pre- to post-cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).

DESIGN

Retrospective review of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiographic examinations.

SETTING

Single academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

The study comprised 69 cardiac surgical patients-27 with aortic valve stenosis (AS) and 42 without AS.

INTERVENTIONS

Two-dimensional and 3D analysis of the LVOT pre- and post-CPB.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Pre- and post-CPB 2D assessment of LVOT diameter (2D LVOTd) was compared with 3D analysis of the minor (3D LVOTd-min) and major diameters. LVOT areas (LVOTa) were calculated using LVOTd to yield 2D LVOTa and 3D LVOTa-min. These were compared with LVOTa measured by planimetry (3D LVOTa-plan). An ellipticity ratio (ER) (ER = 3D minor/major axes) was calculated. The 2D LVOTd was larger than the 3D LVOTd-min before (2.12 v 2.02 cm respectively (resp); p < 0.001) and after (1.96 v 1.85 cm resp; p = 0.04) CPB. Compared with pre-CPB, there were significant decreases in the 2D LVOTd (p = 0.003) and the 3D LVOTd-min (p < 0.001) post-CPB. Ellipticity increased after CPB (ER 0.80 v 0.75; p = 0.004), and the 2D LVOTa was larger than the 3D LVOTa-min before CPB (3.60 cm²v 3.28 cm²; p < 0.001) and less so after CPB (3.11 cm²v 2.79 cm²; p = 0.053). Compared with pre-CPB, all LVOTa measurements decreased significantly after CPB (p < 0.001). The 3D LVOTa-plan decreased after CPB by approximately 10% (4.05 cm²v 3.61 cm²; p < 0.001). The 2D LVOTa and 3D LVOTa-min underestimated the 3D LVOTa-plan before and after CPB (p < 0.001) by 11% to 14% and 19% to 23%, respectively. When compared with non-AS patients, patients with AS had a smaller LVOTa pre- and post-CPB (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The LVOT is smaller and more elliptical after CPB. Patients with AS have a smaller LVOT compared with non-AS patients. LVOTa calculated using LVOTd underestimates the 3D LVOTa-plan by as much as 23% depending on patient type and timing of measurement. Accurate assessment of the LVOT requires 3D imaging.

Aortic valve area calculation using 3D transesophageal echocardiography: Implications for aortic stenosis severity grading

AIMS

Aortic stenosis (AS) grading by 2D-transthoracic echocardiography (2D-TTE) aortic valve area (AVA) calculation is limited by left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) area underestimation. The combination of Doppler parameters with 3D LVOT area obtained by multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) can improve AS grading, reconciling discordant 2D-TTE findings. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the role of 3D-transesophageal echocardiography (3D-TEE) in AS grading using MDCT as reference standard.

METHODS AND RESULTS

288 patients (81 ± 6.3 years, 52.4% female) with symptomatic AS underwent 2D-TTE, 3D-TEE, and MDCT for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Doppler parameters were combined with 3D LVOT areas measured by manual and semi-automated software 3D-TEE and by MDCT to calculate AVA, reassessing AS severity. Both 3D-TEE modalities demonstrated good correlation with MDCT, with excellent intra-observer and inter-observer variability. Compared to MDCT, 3D-TEE measurements significantly underestimated AVA (P_ANOVA  < .0001), although the difference was clinically acceptable. Compared to 2D-TTE, 3D-TEE manual and semi-automated software reclassified severe AS in 21.9% and 25.2% of cases, respectively (P < .0001), overcame grading parameters discordance in more than 40% of cases in patients with low-gradient AS (P < .0001) and reduced the proportion of low-flow states in nearly 75% of cases when combined to stroke volume index assessment (P < .0001). 3D-TEE imaging modalities showed a reduction in the proportion of patients with low-gradient and pathological AVA as defined by 2D-TTE, and improved AVA and mean pressure gradient agreement with current guidelines cutoff values.

CONCLUSION

3D-TEE AVA calculation is a reliable tool for AS grading with excellent reproducibility and good correlation with MDCT measurements.

A pairwise meta-analytic comparison of aortic valve area determined by planimetric versus hemodynamic methods in aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve area (AVA) is commonly determined from 2-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (2D TTE) by the continuity equation; however, this method relies on geometric assumptions of the left ventricular outflow tract which may not hold true. This study compared mean differences and correlations for AVA by planimetric (2-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography [2D TEE], 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography [3D TEE], 3-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography [3D TTE], multi-detector computed tomography [MDCT], and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) with hemodynamic methods (2D TTE and catheterization) using pairwise meta-analysis.

METHOD

Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library (Wiley) were queried for studies comparing AVA measurements assessed by planimetric and hemodynamic techniques. Pairwise meta-analysis for mean differences (using random effect model) and for correlation coefficients (r) were performed.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies (3014 patients) were included. Mean differences between planimetric and hemodynamic techniques were 0.12 cm² (95%CI 0.10-0.15) for AVA (pooled r = 0.84; 95%CI 0.76-0.90); 1.36cm² (95%CI 1.03-1.69) for left ventricular outflow tract area; and 0.13 cm (95%CI 0.07-0.20) for annular diameter (pooled r = 0.76; 95% CI 0.64-0.94); 0.67 cm² (95%CI 0.59-0.76) for annular area (pooled r = 0.74; 95%CI 0.55-0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Planimetric techniques slightly, but significantly, overestimate AVA when compared to hemodynamic techniques.

Impact of anatomical variations of the left ventricular outflow tract on stroke volume calculation by Doppler echocardiography in aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Accurate calculation of stroke volume (SV) by Doppler echocardiography is important for the assessment of aortic stenosis (AS), which may be impacted by anatomical variations of left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT).

METHODS

Patients with AS (n = 64) were studied using computed tomography (CT) and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). Anatomical variations of LVOT areas were measured at (a) the aortic annulus (A_a ); (b) 5 mm (A₅ ); and (c) 10 mm below the annulus (A₁₀ ) by CT. LVOT diameters were also measured by 2D TTE at these three levels for calculation of LVOT areas. Stroke volumes (SV) were calculated using continuity equation. The impacts of anatomical variations of LVOT on SV calculation were evaluated.

RESULTS

Anatomical LVOT area increased from A_a to A₁₀ (5.0 ± 0.9 cm² vs 5.8 ± 1.9 cm² , P < .01). Differences between TTE-calculated LVOT areas and anatomical areas were most significant at A₁₀ due to elongation of mediolateral diameters with variable changes in anteroposterior diameters (5.8 ± 1.9 cm² vs 3.4 ± 1.1 cm² , P < .001). Although mean calculated SV by TTE was not significant at different LVOT levels (A_a 69 ± 22 mL, vs A₅ 66 ± 21 mL, vs A₁₀ 66 ± 28 ± 22 mL, P > .05), the most significant variations in individuals were at A₁₀ levels (ΔSV: 8.2 ± 6.4 mL, 12 ± 9%).

CONCLUSION

Variations of LVOT anatomy in individuals with AS significantly impact the SV calculated by Doppler echocardiography. These features should be taken into account for AS diagnosis and a clinical decision-making for intervention.

Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography for left ventricular outflow tract measurements in severe aortic stenosis. A cross-sectional study using computer tomography and Haegar sizers as reference

Objectives. In grading of aortic stenosis, two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (2D TTE) routinely results in underestimation of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) area, and hence the aortic valve area (AVA). We investigated whether three-dimensional (3D) TTE measurements of the LVOT would be more accurate. We evaluated the feasibility, agreement and inter-observer variability of 3D TTE LVOT measurements with computed tomography (CT) and Haegar sizers as reference. Design. Sixty-one patients with severe aortic stenosis were examined with 2D and 3D TTE. 41 had CT and 13 also had perioperative Haegar sizing. Pearson's correlation and Bland-Altman plots were used to compare methods. Inter-observer variability was tested for 2D and 3D TTE. Trial registration: Current research information system in Norway (CRISTIN). Id: 555249. Results. Feasibility was 67% with 3D TTE and 100% with 2D TTE and CT. Mean LVOT area for 2D, 3D, CT and Haegar sizers were 3.7 ± 0.6 cm2, 4.0 ± 0.9 cm2, 5.2 ± 0.8 cm2 and 4.4 ± 1.0 cm2 respectively. Bias and limits of agreements for 2D TTE was 1.5 ± 1.3 cm2, compared with CT and 0.4 ± 1.5 cm2 with Haegar sizers. Corresponding results for 3D TTE were 1.2 ± 1.6 cm2 and 0.2 ± 1.8 cm2. Intraclass correlation coefficients for LVOT area were 0.62 for 3D and 0.86 for 2D. Conclusions. 2D TTE showed better feasibility and inter-observer variability in measurements of LVOT than 3D TTE. Both echocardiographic methods underestimated LVOT area compared to CT and Haegar sizers. These observations suggest that 2D TTE is still preferable to 3D TTE in the assessment of aortic stenosis.

Direct Planimetry of Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Area by Simultaneous Biplane Imaging: Challenging the Need for a Circular Assumption of the Left Ventricular Outflow Tract in the Assessment of Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of aortic stenosis (AS) requires calculation of aortic valve area (AVA), which relies on the assumption of a circular-shaped left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). However, the LVOT is often elliptical, and the circular assumption underestimates the true LVOT area (LVOTA). Biplane imaging using transthoracic echocardiography allows direct planimetry of LVOTA. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of obtaining LVOTA using this technique and its impact on the discordance between AVA and gradient criteria in AS grading.

METHODS

We prospectively studied 134 patients (median age, 80 years; interquartile range, 73-87 years; 39% women) with AS, including 82 (61%) with severe AS and 52 (39%) with mild or moderate AS. LVOTA was traced using direct planimetry (LVOTA_biplane) and compared with LVOTA calculated using the circular assumption (LVOTA_circ). In a subset of patients who underwent cardiac computed tomography, direct planimetry of LVOTA was used as a reference standard.

RESULTS

LVOTA_biplane was significantly larger than LVOTA_circ (4.20 cm² [interquartile range, 3.66-4.90 cm²] vs 3.73 cm² [interquartile range, 3.14-4.15 cm²], P < .001). Among 30 patients who underwent cardiac computed tomography, LVOTA_biplane had better agreement with LVOTA by direct planimetry than LVOTA_circ (mean bias, -0.45 ± 0.63 vs -1.02 ± 0.63 cm²; P < .0001). Of 82 patients with severe AS (AVA ≤ 1 cm² using LVOTA_circ), 40 (49%) had discordant mean gradient (<40 mm Hg). By using LVOTA_biplane, patients with discordant AVA and mean gradient decreased from 49% to 27% (P = .004), and 29% of patients with severe AS were reclassified with moderate AS, with the highest percentage of reclassification in the group with low-gradient AS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct planimetry using biplane imaging avoids the inherent underestimation of LVOTA using the circular assumption. LVOTA obtained by biplane planimetry can lead to better concordance between AVA and mean gradient and classification of AS severity.

Aortic valve area using computed tomography-derived correction factor to improve the validity of left ventricular outflow tract measurements

AIMS

Given the inherent inaccuracies stemming from the assumption that the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) is circular, this study aimed to improve the accuracy of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE)-based aortic valve area (AVA) calculation using continuity equation (CE) by introducing a correction factor (CF) derived from multidetector computed tomography angiography (MDCTA) images and validate it in aortic stenosis (AS) patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective study used MDCTA images of 400 patients for modeling and 403 TTE dataset for validation. Echocardiographic parasternal long-axis view was modeled using MDCTA, and LVOT diameter (D1) was measured. Direct planimetry of LVOT area was performed and subsequently converted into a theoretical circle. The assumed circle (D2) diameter was derived, and D2/D1 was calculated and termed as the CF. The CF was 1.13, and it improved the agreement between MDCTA- and TTE-derived LVOT areas and correlation between AVA and peak velocity, mean pressure gradient, and velocity ratio. In discordant subgroups of severe AS, the CF reclassified patients to moderate AS in 40% in the low flow (LF), low gradient (LG), and low ejection fraction (EF) group; 53% in the LF, LG, and normal EF group; and 68% in the LF, high gradient, and normal EF group.

CONCLUSIONS

CF of 1.13 derived from MDCTA improved the accuracy of TTE-derived LVOT area and AVA and improved correlation with hemodynamic variables in AS patients. Reclassification of AS patients using CF may have clinical applicability for patient selection for early intervention.

Measurement errors in serial echocardiographic assessments of aortic valve stenosis severity

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) evaluation of aortic stenosis (AS) is routinely performed using the continuity equation. Inaccurate measurements of the left ventricular (LV) outflow tract (LVOT) diameter are considered the most common source of error in AS grading. We hypothesized that inconsistency in LVOT velocity time integral (VTI) is an under-recognized cause of AS assessment error. We sought to determine which parameters contribute most towards inconsistencies in AS grading by studying the prevalence of different errors in a historic cohort. We identified patients with mild to severe AS with multiple studies from our database from 1994 to 2018 (n = 988 patients, 2859 studies). Errors were defined when: (1) LVOT diameter changed by > 2 mm, (2) LVOT VTI changed by > 15% without change in LV function from the initial TTE, (3) aortic valve (AV) maximum velocity (Vmax), mean pressure gradient (ΔP) or AV VTI decreased by > 15% without change in LV function from prior study. The most common error was the LVOT VTI measurement with 22% prevalence. LVOT diameter, AV VTI, AV Vmax and AV ΔP measurement caused errors in < 7% studies. Patients with normal LV function and more severe AS were more likely to have LVOT VTI errors (P < 0.05). LVOT VTI is a frequent, under-recognized source of error in assessing AS. Greater attention should be directed toward the proper positioning of the pulsed Doppler sample volume, particularly in patients with higher grades of AS and normal systolic function, to ensure accurate and reproducible assessment of AS.

The contemporary role of echocardiography in the assessment and management of aortic stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) represents a major healthcare issue because of its ever-increasing prevalence, poor prognosis, and complex pathophysiology. Echocardiography plays a central role in providing a comprehensive morphological and hemodynamic evaluation of AS. The diagnosis of severe AS is currently based on three hemodynamic parameters including maximal jet velocity, mean pressure gradient (mPG) across the aortic valve, and aortic valve area (AVA). However, inconsistent grading of AS severity is common when the AVA is < 1.0 cm² but the mPG is < 40 mmHg, also known as low-gradient AS (LGAS). Special attention should be paid to patients with symptomatic LGAS with low stroke volume and/or low ejection fraction because this entity is more difficult to diagnose and has a worse prognosis. Stress echocardiography testing plays an important role in this disease entity. Elderly patients with prohibitive comorbidities for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) were without procedural options until the advent of transcatheter AVR (TAVR), which has dramatically changed these circumstances. Along with computed tomography, echocardiography plays a vital role in the periprocedural assessment of the aortic valve and surrounding apparatus. This review describes the evolution of the role of echocardiography in the diagnosis and management of AS, the complexity of the aortic apparatus, and the increased need for expert use of three-dimensional echocardiography.

Outcome of Normal-Flow Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis With Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: A Propensity-Matched Study

Background

Normal‐flow, low‐gradient severe aortic stenosis (NF‐LG‐SAS), defined by aortic valve area <1 cm², mean gradient <40 mm Hg, and indexed stroke volume >35 mL/m², is the most prevalent form of low‐gradient aortic stenosis (AS). However, the true severity of AS and the management of NF‐LG‐SAS are controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients with NF‐LG‐SAS compared with moderate AS (MAS) and with high‐gradient severe‐AS (HG‐SAS).

Methods and Results

A total of 154 patients with NF‐LG‐SAS, 366 with MAS (aortic valve area between 1.0 and 1.3 cm²), and 1055 with HG‐SAS were included. On multivariate analysis, after adjustment for covariates of prognostic importance, NF‐LG‐SAS patients did not exhibit an excess risk of mortality compared with MAS patients under medical management (hazard ratio=1.13 [95% CI, 0.82‐1.56]; P=0.45) and under medical and surgical management (hazard ratio 1.06 [95% CI, 0.79‐1.43]; P=0.70), even after further adjustment for aortic valve replacement (hazard ratio=1.09 [95% CI, 0.81‐1.48]; P=0.56). The 6‐year cumulative incidence of aortic valve replacement (performed in accordance with guidelines) was comparable between the 2 groups (39±4% for NF‐LG‐SAS and 35±3% for MAS, P=0.10). After propensity score matching (n=226), NF‐LG‐SAS and MAS patients also had comparable outcomes under medical (P=0.41) and under medical and surgical management (P=0.52). NF‐LG‐SAS had better outcomes than HG‐SAS patients (adjusted hazard ratio 1.84 [95% CI, 1.18‐2.88]; P<0.001).

Conclusions

This study shows that patients with NF‐LG‐SAS have a comparable outcome to those with MAS when aortic valve replacement is performed during follow‐up according to guidelines, mostly at the stage of HG‐SAS. Rigorous echocardiographic assessment to rule out measurement errors and close follow‐up are essential to detect progression to true severe AS in NF‐LG‐SAS.

Contemporary Imaging of Aortic Stenosis

Degenerative or fibrocalcific aortic stenosis (AS) is now the most common native valvular heart disease assessed and managed by cardiologists in developed countries. Transthoracic echocardiography remains the quintessential imaging modality for the non-invasive characterisation of AS due to its widespread availability, superior assessment of flow haemodynamics, and a wealth of prognostic data accumulated over decades of clinical utility and research applications. With expanding technologies and increasing availability of treatment options such as transcatheter aortic valve replacements, in addition to conventional surgical approaches, accurate and precise assessment of AS severity is critical to guide decisions for and timing of interventions. Despite clear guideline echocardiographic parameters demarcating severe AS, discrepancies between transvalvular velocities, gradients, and calculated valve areas are commonly encountered in clinical practice. This often results in diagnostically challenging cases with significant implications. Greater emphasis must be placed on the quality of performance of basic two dimensional (2D) and Doppler measurements (attention to detail ensuring accuracy and precision), incorporating ancillary haemodynamic surrogates, understanding study- or patient-specific confounders, and recognising the role and limitations of stress echocardiography in the subgroups of low-flow low-gradient AS. A multiparametric approach, along with the incorporation of multimodality imaging (cardiac computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging) in certain scenarios, is now mandatory to avoid incorrect misclassification of severe AS. This is essential to ensure appropriate selection of patients who would most benefit from interventions on the aortic valve to relieve the afterload mismatch resulting from truly severe valvular stenosis.

The mystery of defining aortic valve area: what have we learnt from three-dimensional imaging modalities?

Aortic valve area is one of the main criteria used by echocardiography to determine the degree of valvular aortic stenosis, and it is calculated using the continuity equation which assumes that the flow volume of blood is equal at two points, the aortic valve area and the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). The main fallacy of this equation is the assumption that the LVOT area which is used to calculate the flow volume at the LVOT level is circular, where it is often an ellipse and sometimes irregular. The aim of this review is to explain the physiology of the continuity equation, the different sources of errors, the added benefits of using three-dimensional imaging modalities to measure LVOT area, the latest recommendations related to valvular aortic stenosis, and to introduce future perspectives. A literature review of studies comparing aortic valve area and LVOT area, after using three-dimensional data, has shown underestimation of both measurements when using the continuity equation. This has more impact on patients with discordant echocardiographic measurements when aortic valve area is disproportionate to haemodynamic measurements in assessing the degree of aortic stenosis. Although fusion imaging modalities of LVOT area can help in certain group of patients to address the issue of aortic valve area underestimation, further research on introducing a correction factor to the conventional continuity equation might be more rewarding, saving patients additional tests and potential radiation, with no clear evidence of cost-effectiveness.

Recommendations on the echocardiographic assessment of aortic valve stenosis: a focused update from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography

Echocardiography is the key tool for the diagnosis and evaluation of aortic stenosis. Because clinical decision-making is based on the echocardiographic assessment of its severity, it is essential that standards are adopted to maintain accuracy and consistency across echocardiographic laboratories. Detailed recommendations for the echocardiographic assessment of valve stenosis were published by the European Association of Echocardiography and the American Society of Echocardiography in 2009. In the meantime, numerous new studies on aortic stenosis have been published with particular new insights into the difficult subgroup of low gradient aortic stenosis making an update of recommendations necessary. The document focuses in particular on the optimization of left ventricular outflow tract assessment, low flow, low gradient aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction, a new classification of aortic stenosis by gradient, flow and ejection fraction, and a grading algorithm for an integrated and stepwise approach of artic stenosis assessment in clinical practice.