Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2012 Apr;28(4):855-63.
doi: 10.1007/s10554-011-9888-0. Epub 2011 May 21.

Characterization of mitral valve prolapse with cardiac computed tomography: comparison to echocardiographic and intraoperative findings

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Characterization of mitral valve prolapse with cardiac computed tomography: comparison to echocardiographic and intraoperative findings

Nina Ghosh et al. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Apr.

Abstract

A single imaging modality that can accurately assess both coronary anatomy and mitral valve (MV) anatomy prior to surgery may be desirable. We sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac computed tomography (CT) to detect and characterize mitral valve prolapse (MVP) compared to echocardiography. Consecutive patients referred for 'single-source' cardiac CT for investigation prior to non-coronary cardiac sugery were identified. MV anatomy was assessed for MVP and results were compared to echocardiography and to intra-operative visual assessment of the MV. Comparison between the three modalities was performed at the per-patient, per-leaflet and per-scallop levels. A total of 67 consecutive patients that were referred for Cardiac CT prior to non-coronary cardiac surgery and were prospectively recruited into a Cardiac CT registry. Of these, 65 patients underwent cardiac surgery. 63 patients had echocardiography and 32 patients had intra-operative visual assessment of the mitral valve. Compared to echocardiography, cardiac CT had excellent sensitivity (92.6%) and specificity (97.1%) for the detection of any MVP, but had poor sensitivity (68.5%) for the detection of individual prolapsing scallop. Compared to intra-operative visual assessment of the prolapsing scallop, both cardiac CT and echocardiography had low sensitivity (58.1 and 78.1%, respectively). Cardiac CT was able to identify patients with MVP but had difficulty identifying the prolapsed scallops compared to echocardiography. Single-source CT may not be ready for characterization of individual mitral valve scallops.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Am J Cardiol. 1991 Jun 1;67(15):1251-5 - PubMed
    1. Circulation. 1995 Feb 15;91(4):1022-8 - PubMed
    1. Radiology. 2006 Feb;238(2):454-63 - PubMed
    1. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Jan;2(1):16-23 - PubMed
    1. Circulation. 2008 Dec 9;118(24):2662-6 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms