Prognostic value of myocardial computed tomography–derived extracellular volume in severe aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Andrea Faggiano, Elisa Gherbesi, Stefano Carugo, Matteo Brusamolino, Dan Alexandru Cozac, Elena Cozza, Maria Teresa Savo, F. Cannata, Marco Guglielmo, Lucia La Mura, Fabio Fazzari, Nazario Carrabba, Edoardo Conte, Saima Mushtaq, Andrea Baggiano, Andrea Igoren Guaricci, Roberto Pedrinelli, Ciro Indolfi, Gianfranco Sinagra, Pasquale Perrone Filardi, Valeria Pergola, Gianluca Pontone
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT)-derived extracellular volume (ECV) fraction is a non-invasive method to quantify myocardial fibrosis. Evaluating CT-ECV during aortic valve replacement (AVR) planning CT in severe aortic stenosis (AS) may aid prognostic stratification. This meta-analysis evaluated the prognostic significance of CT-ECV in severe AS necessitating AVR. Electronic database searches of PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were performed. The primary outcome was to compare the occurrence of a composite of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with severe AS undergoing AVR with elevated myocardial CT-ECV values vs. patients with normal values. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization. A total of 1223 patients undergoing AVR for severe AS were included in 10 studies: 524 patients with high values of CT-ECV and 699 with normal values of CT-ECV. The pooled CT-ECV cut-off to define elevated values and predict prognosis was 30.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 28.5-33.7%]. At a mean follow-up of 17.9 ± 2.3 months after AVR, patients with elevated CT-ECV experienced a significantly higher number of cardiovascular events [43.4 vs. 14.0%; odds ratio (OR): 4.3, 95% CI: 3.192-5.764, P < 0.001]. Regarding secondary outcomes, all-cause mortality occurred in 29.3% of patients with elevated CT-ECV vs. 11.6% with CT-ECV below the cut-off (OR: 3.5, 95% CI: 2.276-5.311, P < 0.001), whereas HF hospitalization was observed in 25.5% vs. 5.9% (OR: 4.9, 95% CI: 2.283-10.376, P < 0.001). Patients undergoing AVR for severe AS with elevated CT-ECV values experience a worse post-intervention prognosis. The implementation of CT-ECV evaluation in routine AVR planning protocols should be considered.