Why the study?
To evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic performance of the aortic valve calcium score using CT Agatston method in aortic stenosis and assess mean scores by severity.
Does aortic valve calcium score (AVCS) with cardiac CT accurately diagnose severe aortic stenosis and predict mortality in patients with aortic stenosis?
Does aortic valve calcium score (AVCS) with cardiac CT accurately diagnose severe aortic stenosis and predict mortality in patients with aortic stenosis?
Aortic valve calcium scoring by cardiac CT demonstrates good diagnostic accuracy for severe aortic stenosis and serves as a significant predictor of all-cause mortality.
Supports the use of CT-derived aortic valve calcium scoring for risk stratification in severe.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic performance of the aortic valve calcium score (AVCS) with the Agatston method using CT in aortic stenosis (AS) and to assess mean AVCS according to AS severity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from January 1, 1980, to December 31, 2020, for studies reporting sensitivity and specificity of AVCS using CT for severe AS, mean AVCS in severe and nonsevere AS, and/or hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in AS. Data were pooled using random effect models and meta-analysis software. RESULTS: Twelve studies (six diagnostic, three prognostic, and 10 reporting mean AVCS by AS severity) were included for analysis. A total of 4101 patients (2255 with severe AS) were described in these 12 studies. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 82% (95% CI: 80, 84) and 78% (95% CI: 75, 81), respectively. Pooled mean AVCS were 3219 (95% CI: 2795, 3643) for severe AS, compared with 1252 (95% CI: 863, 1640) for nonsevere AS, 1808 (95% CI: 1163, 2452) for moderate AS, and 584 (95% CI: 309, 859) for mild AS. Pooled hazard ratio for AVCS as a binary threshold to predict mortality was 2.11 (95% CI: 1.11, 4.12). CONCLUSION: CT, Aortic Valve, Valves, Meta-Analysis© RSNA, 2021.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: