English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDYIt has not yet been established whether multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) is reliable for the quantification of aortic valve area (AVA) in patients with aortic valve stenosis (AVS) and simultaneously for assessment of the coronary anatomy. The study aim, via a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, was to explore whether MSCT is a reliable method for AVA quantification, and simultaneously to assess the coronary anatomy in patients with AVS.METHODSA comprehensive systematic literature search and meta-analysis was conducted that included 14 studies totaling 470 patients. The meta-analysis was carried out to examine the reliability of MSCT compared to transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Seven studies including 266 patients with AVS were also eligible for a secondary analysis to compare the accuracy of MSCT with invasive coronary angiography.RESULTSThe AVA was measured by MSCT and TTE in all 14 studies, and by TEE in four studies. The results of the meta-analyses showed that planimetry by MSCT overestimated the AVA, with a bias of 0.08 (95% CI 0.04, 0.13) cm2) (p = 0.0001) compared to TTE. The MSCT measurement was concordant with planimetry by TEE, with a small bias of -0.02 (95% CI -0.16, 0.11) cm2 (p = 0.71). MSCT, when compared to invasive angiography for the detection of significant coronary stenosis, showed sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio of 95.5% (95% CI 88-99), 81% (95% CI 75-86)%, and 53 (95% CI 19-147), respectively.CONCLUSIONMSCT is a reliable method for the quantification of AVA, and represents a promising technique for the combined evaluation of aortic valve morphology and coronary artery disease.

Evaluation of Aortic Valve Stenosis by Cardiac Multi- Slice Computed Tomography Compared with Echocardiography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis