AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mahnken, A. H.
Right arrow Articles by Koos, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mahnken, A. H.
Right arrow Articles by Koos, R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.06.1002
AJR 2007; 188:1264-1269
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

MDCT Detection of Mitral Valve Calcification: Prevalence and Clinical Relevance Compared with Echocardiography

Andreas H. Mahnken1,2, Georg Mühlenbruch1, Marco Das1, Joachim E. Wildberger1, Harald P. Kühl3, Rolf W. Günther1, Malte Kelm3 and Ralf Koos3

1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital, RWTH-Aachen University, Pauwelsstrasse 30, D-52074 Aachen, Germany.
2 Applied Medical Engineering, Helmholtz Institute, RWTH-Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
3 Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital, RWTH-Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.

Received July 31, 2006; accepted after revision November 8, 2006.

 
Address correspondence to A. H. Mahnken (mahnken{at}rad.rwth-aachen.de).


Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to analyze the prevalence and clinical significance of mitral valve calcification incidentally detected on chest CT scans in comparison with echocardiography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The data of 390 patients (227 men and 163 women; mean age, 62.4 ± 12.2 years) who underwent MDCT of the chest and echocardiography were retrospectively evaluated. On MDCT, mitral valve leaflet and annulus calcification were visually graded on a scale of 0-3, with grade 0 denoting no calcification and grade 3 indicating severe calcification. CT findings were correlated with hemodynamic data obtained at echocardiography. Unpaired Student's t tests, chi-square analysis, and a weighted-kappa test were used to compare results.

RESULTS. In 32 (8.2%) of 390 patients, chest MDCT revealed mitral valve leaflet calcification. Fifteen of these patients (15/390, 3.8%) presented with mitral valve stenosis. Excellent agreement ({kappa} = 0.882) was seen between the presence of mitral valve calcification on MDCT and echocardiographically proven mitral valve sclerosis. Mitral valve leaflet calcification on MDCT and the severity of mitral valve disease on echocardiography showed a substantial agreement ({kappa} = 0.730). A significant relationship was seen between the degree of mitral valve calcification on MDCT and the echocardiographically determined severity of mitral valve disease (no sclerosis vs mitral sclerosis vs mitral stenosis; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION. Mitral valve leaflet calcification on MDCT indicates mitral valve sclerosis or stenosis. Thus, patients presenting with incidentally detected mitral valve leaflet calcification on chest CT may benefit from a functional assessment with echocardiography.

Keywords: calcification • CT • heart • MDCT • mitral valve


Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Mitral valve calcification is regularly seen on chest CT scans that are obtained for a variety of noncardiac diagnoses. The clinical impact of this finding, however, is unclear. Only limited data exist that indicate the presence of mitral valve calcification on CT to be related to mitral valve disease [1-3]. Data on the prevalence and clinical relevance of this finding are missing. For aortic valve calcification, more data are available, proving valvular calcifications to be related to aortic valve stenosis [4-7]. Previously, several authors have shown that mitral valve calcification on chest radiography is related to valvular stenosis [8, 9]. This finding is found in patients with a history of rheumatic fever, noninflammatory calcific disease, and chronic renal failure [10]. In addition, mitral valve calcification is related to several other cardiovascular diseases—an increased risk of stroke [11], cardiac conduction defects [12], and atherosclerosis, including coronary artery calcifications [13, 14]. Mitral valve calcification also affects therapy because these patients have a poorer outcome after balloon valvotomy [15]. In more than 90% of patients, mitral valve stenosis is thought to be a sequela of rheumatic disease [16], with a delay of up to three decades between the initial manifestations of rheumatic fever and the development of mitral stenosis [17]. Therefore, the clinical relevance of mitral valve calcification as a possible sign of disease is of interest.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the prevalence and clinical significance of mitral valve calcification incidentally detected on routine chest CT in comparison with echocardiography.


Materials and Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Patients
All patients (n = 1,788) who underwent MDCT of the chest between August 2001 and August 2004 were derived from a computer-based retrieval system of a radiology information system database. The review of the computer records of these patients identified 393 patients who had undergone chest CT and echocardiography within a 3-month period. Three patients with a history of mitral valve replacement were excluded from further analysis. In the remaining 390 patients (227 men, 163 women; mean age, 62.4 ± 12.2 years; range, 33-91 years), the presence of mitral valve leaflet (MVL) and mitral valve annulus (MVA) calcification on MDCT was correlated with echocardiographic findings. On average, the interval between MDCT and echocardiography was 48.2 ± 37.6 days (range, 1-79 days). Approval and informed consent for review of patient records and images is not required by our institutional review board.

Indications for chest CT included evaluation of thoracic and extrathoracic malignant tumor (n = 993), pulmonary embolism (n = 485), and infection (n = 163); and assessment of thoracic aortic aneurysm or dissection (n = 93) and posttraumatic (n = 37) or postoperative (n = 17) abnormalities.

CT
In 177 (45.4%) of 390 patients, MDCT examinations were performed using a 4-MDCT scanner (Somatom VolumeZoom, Siemens Medical Solutions), and in 213 (54.6%) of 390 patients, using a 16-MDCT scanner (Somatom Sensation 16, Siemens). All MDCT was performed in end-inspiratory breath-hold without ECG synchronization. Standardized scanning and reconstruction parameters were applied to all scans, with the field of view being individually adapted to each patient's physique (Table 1). In 333 (85.4%) of 390 patients, contrast-enhanced MDCT scans were available for analysis. For 4-MDCT, 80 mL of contrast material (Ultravist 370 [iopromide], Schering) was administered at a flow rate of 3 mL/s; for 16-MDCT, 90 mL of contrast material (Ultravist 370) was injected at a flow rate of 4 mL/s. In all patients, contrast material injection was followed by a 30-mL saline chaser bolus injected at the same flow rate as the contrast material.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 1: Scanning and Reconstruction Parameters for 4- and 16-MDCT

 

All MDCT scans were reviewed as axial images on an external workstation (Leonardo, Siemens) by a radiologist with 7 years' experience in chest CT. The reviewer was blinded to the echocardiographic findings. The presence of MVL and MVA calcification was documented (0 = no MVA calcification, 1 = MVA calcification). In addition, mitral valve calcifications were quantified using a 4-point scale that was determined before image analysis, as follows: 0 = no calcification; 1 = minor valvular calcification that was visible as spotty calcifications on CT scans; 2 = marked, but circumscribed calcifications; and 3 = diffuse severe valvular calcification involving the anterior and the posterior leaflets.

Echocardiography
A comprehensive echocardiographic study, including M-mode, 2D echocardiography, and Doppler echocardiographic measurements, was performed in all patients by experienced sonographers using a commercially available sonographic system. The mean transmitral gradient was measured from the continuous wave Doppler signal across the mitral valve using the modified Bernoulli equation [18, 19], and planimetry of the orifice area was performed from the short-axis view [20]. A cardiologist with 6 years' experience in transthoracic echocardiography, unaware of the MDCT findings, reviewed all echocardiographic examinations. Mitral valve sclerosis was defined as a structural abnormality of the mitral valve apparatus with leaflet thickening and calcification but no diastolic transmitral gradient. The presence of mitral valve stenosis included additional restriction of leaflet motion leading to a diastolic transmitral gradient. The severity of mitral valve stenosis was classified according to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines [21]. A valve area > 1.5 cm2 and a mean transmitral gradient < 5 mm Hg was classified as mild mitral valve stenosis; a valve area between ≥ 1.0 cm2 and ≤ 1.5 cm2 and a mean transmitral gradient of 5-15 mm Hg, as moderate stenosis; and a valve area < 1.0 cm2 and a mean transmitral gradient > 15 mm Hg, as severe mitral valve stenosis. For statistical analysis, patients with moderate and severe mitral stenosis were summarized.

Statistical Analysis
Continuous variables are expressed as mean values plus or minus SDs. Categoric data are presented as frequencies. Continuous variables were compared using unpaired Student's t tests, and categoric data were assessed using chi-square analysis. Weighted-kappa tests were used to analyze the agreement between the presence and grade of MVL and MVA calcification on MDCT and the presence and severity of mitral valve disease assessed on echocardiography. Kappa statistics were interpreted according to Landis and Koch [22]: 0-0.2, low agreement; 0.21-0.4, moderate; 0.41-0.6, good; 0.61-0.8, substantial; and > 0.81, perfect agreement. A significance level of 5% was assumed. For statistical analysis, Medcalc 7.1 (Medcalc Software) was used.


Results
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
On MDCT, MVL calcification was noted in 32 (8.2%) of 390 patients (Table 2). None of the patients showed severe and diffuse calcifications (grade 3). Calcification of the MVA was present in 36 (9.2%) of 390 patients. Echocardiography revealed mitral valve sclerosis in 33 (8.5%) of 390 patients; 15 of these patients presented with mitral valve stenosis (15/390, 3.8%) (Table 3). All patients with mitral valve stenosis presented with at least minor MVL calcification. In an additional three (0.8%) patients without echocardiographic signs of mitral valve stenosis, MDCT revealed minor calcifications of the MVL. There was an overlap in the populations with MVL and MVA calcifications. Although some patients showed only MVL (n = 13) or MVA (n = 17) calcification, 19 patients presented with both MVA and MVL calcifications (Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 2: Comparison of Presence of Mitral Valve Leaflet (MVL) Calcification on MDCT and Degree of Valvular Disease on Echocardiography

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 3: Comparison of Mitral Valve Annulus (MVA) Calcification Detected on MDCT and Degree of Mitral Valve Disease on Echocardiography

 

Figure 1
View larger version (92K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1A —Classification of mitral valve annulus and mitral valve leaflet. Detection of mitral valve leaflet (arrow, A) or annulus (arrow, B) calcification requires minimum amount of calcium.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (91K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1B —Classification of mitral valve annulus and mitral valve leaflet. Detection of mitral valve leaflet (arrow, A) or annulus (arrow, B) calcification requires minimum amount of calcium.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (89K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1C —Classification of mitral valve annulus and mitral valve leaflet. In patients presenting with both mitral valve leaflet (arrows) and annulus (arrowhead) calcification separation of anatomic structures was feasible from their position on axial CT images because mitral valve apparatus is positioned horizontally to scanning plane.

 

With respect to the frequency of mitral valve calcifications, no difference was detected between contrast-enhanced (27/333 patients, 8.1%) and unenhanced (5/57 patients, 8.8%; p = 0.8678) MDCT scans. No significant difference was seen in the detection of MVL calcification between male (18/227, 7.9%) and female (14/163, 8.6%) patients, but patients with MVL calcification detected on CT were older (69.4 ± 8.2 years) than those without MVL calcification (61.7 ± 12.2 years) (p = 0.003). The same finding was observed for the presence of MVA calcification, with the patients without MVA calcification being significantly younger (61.5 ± 12.2 years) than the patients with calcification seen on MDCT (70.6 ± 8.3) (p < 0.0001).

Perfect agreement ({kappa} = 0.882) was seen between the presence of MVL calcification on MDCT and mitral valve sclerosis. The agreement between the grade of MVL calcification on MDCT and the severity of mitral valve disease on echocardiography ({kappa} = 0.730) was substantial (Table 2 and Figs. 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B and 5A, 5B). A significant relationship was seen between the degree of MVL calcification on MDCT and the echocardiographically determined severity of mitral valve disease (no sclerosis vs mitral sclerosis vs mitral stenosis; p < 0.0001). Three of 357 patients without mitral valve disease presented with grade 1 MVL calcification on MDCT, whereas all patients with grade 2 MVL calcification on MDCT revealed mitral valve stenosis on echocardiography.


Figure 4
View larger version (118K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2A —57-year-old man without mitral valve disease. MDCT scan shows neither mitral valve leaflet nor mitral valve annulus calcification (grade 0).

 

Figure 5
View larger version (145K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2B —57-year-old man without mitral valve disease. Echocardiogram shows normal mitral valve.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (120K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 3A —71-year-old man with mild calcification (grade 1). Contrast-enhanced MDCT scan shows calcification in posterior leaflet of mitral valve (arrow).

 

Figure 7
View larger version (106K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 3B —71-year-old man with mild calcification (grade 1). Corresponding echocardiogram reveals mild mitral stenosis.

 

Figure 8
View larger version (117K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 4A —75-year-old man with moderate calcification. MDCT scan shows mainly mitral valve annulus but also mitral valve leaflet calcification (grade 2), indicating mitral valve stenosis. Pleural effusion is also present.

 

Figure 9
View larger version (148K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 4B —75-year-old man with moderate calcification. Echocardiogram shows typical diastolic doming (arrows) and confirms moderate mitral valve stenosis.

 

Figure 10
View larger version (125K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 5A —80-year-old woman with severe calcification. MDCT scan shows severe but circumscribed mitral valve calcification (grade 2) affecting anterior and posterior mitral valve leaflets (arrows).

 

Figure 11
View larger version (133K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 5B —80-year-old woman with severe calcification. Corresponding echocardiogram depicts thickening and calcification of mitral valve leaflets (arrows) that are indicative of severe mitral valve stenosis.

 
In addition, good agreement was seen between the presence of MVA calcification and the presence of mitral valve stenosis as detected on echocardiography ({kappa} = 0.498) (Table 3).


Discussion
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Mitral valve calcification may be seen in rheumatic mitral stenosis or as a result of degenerative changes in elderly patients. The latter are often associated with MVA calcification. Especially extensive degenerative calcification of the MVA may extend to the valve leaflets, resulting in a variety of valvular diseases, including mitral valve stenosis. Historically, radiography and fluoroscopy were used for assessing mitral valve calcification. Today, routine evaluation of patients with mitral valve disease is performed using echocardiography. This approach permits an accurate determination of functional data of the mitral valve, including identification of flail mitral valves, measurement of transvalvular pressure gradients, and assessment of morphologic valve abnormalities such as thickening or calcification of the MVL and MVA [23]. So far, only limited data are available on the role of CT in assessing mitral valve calcification [1-3].

Woodring and West [1] found mitral valve calcifications in five patients 70 years old or older in a group of 100 patients examined with sequential single-detector CT. Although four of these patients presented with signs of valvular heart disease, none of them had evidence of mitral valve stenosis. However, the study was hampered by several factors: First, it was performed at low temporal and spatial resolutions, with a gantry rotation time of 2 seconds and a slice thickness of 10 mm. Consequently, the authors failed to distinguish calcification of the MVL from MVA calcification. Second, only a small number of patients with mitral valve calcification were included in that study.

In a study of accidental findings on electron beam CT, Hunold et al. [24] reported mitral valve calcification in 131 (7.2%) of 1,812 patients; the frequency of these findings is similar to the results of our study. However, echocardiography was available in only 30 patients, revealing only mild mitral regurgitation or mitral stenosis. The severity of calcification was not assessed in that study [24]. The most recent study dealing with mitral valve calcification by Willmann et al. [2] proved the differentiation between MVL and MVA calcification is feasible with retrospectively ECG-gated MDCT. MVL calcifications were detected in 15% of their patients and MVA calcifications, in 45%. Because of the small study population, with only 20 patients having known mitral valve disease, no conclusions as to the clinical impact of incidentally found mitral valve calcification could be drawn.

In our study, we were able to differentiate MVL from MVA calcification. The presence of MVL calcification indicated the presence of mitral sclerosis or stenosis. This finding contrasts with the results reported by Woodring and West [1], but this difference might be explained by their inability to differentiate MVL calcification from MVA calcification. Correspondingly, the correlation between the presence of mitral valve sclerosis or stenosis was worse for MVA calcification. Although our data suggest a good agreement between MVA calcification and mitral valve stenosis, the discriminative power of MVA calcification on MDCT is insufficient for clinical purposes (Table 3). Instead, our results indicate the need to differentiate between MVL calcification and MVA calcification. Knowledge of the latter might be important because MVA calcification is known to be associated with a higher incidence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, and stroke [25, 26]. Moreover, a relationship with the presence of coronary artery calcifications and atherosclerotic disease has been shown [14, 27].

A limitation of our study is the missing differentiation of rheumatic from degenerative mitral valve disease. However, this differentiation is dispensable for our purposes because this information will not change further diagnostic workup in the presence of mitral valve calcification incidentally detected on CT. Another limitation is the inclusion of data from contrast-enhanced and from unenhanced studies. However, the frequency of mitral valve abnormalities was similar in both groups. In addition, motion artifacts may negatively influence depiction of the mitral valve because routine chest CT is performed without ECG gating. Nevertheless, with subsecond gantry rotation time, image quality was sufficient to differentiate MVL calcification from MVA calcification in all patients.

Quantification of the MVL and MVA calcification was omitted because motion artifacts and the presence of contrast material are known to limit the reliability of such measurements [28, 29]. Because ECG-gated MDCT eliminates motion artifacts, quantification of mitral valve calcifications may become a future application for cardiac MDCT. The latter potentially improves the discriminative power of MDCT for assessing the severity of mitral valve stenosis, similar to the quantitative assessment of aortic valve calcifications [5, 6]. To date, however, ECG-gated MDCT is of no relevance in the routine workup of mitral valve abnormalities.

In conclusion, our data suggest that MVL calcification is a pertinent indicator for mitral valve sclerosis or stenosis, whereas MVA calcification is not suited to reliably determine the presence of mitral valve disease. Although the quantity of calcification is related to the severity of disease, no unequivocal assessment of the hemodynamic significance can be made. Therefore, patients presenting with incidentally detected MVL calcification on chest CT may benefit from echocardiography and further diagnostic workup.


References
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 

  1. Woodring JH, West JW. CT of aortic and mitral valve calcification. J Ky Med Assoc 1989;87 : 177-180[Medline]
  2. Willmann JK, Kobza R, Roos JE, et al. ECG-gated multi-detector row CT for assessment of mitral valve disease: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2002; 12:2662 -2669[Medline]
  3. Heuser L, Neufang KF, Jansen W. Computed tomographic findings in mitral valve disease [in German]. Rofo1984; 140:435 -440[Medline]
  4. Liu F, Coursey CA, Grahame-Clarke C, et al. Aortic valve calcification as an incidental finding at CT of the elderly: severity and location as predictors of aortic stenosis. AJR2006; 186:342 -349[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Koos R, Mahnken AH, Sinha AM, Wildberger JE, Hoffmann R, Kuhl HP. Aortic valve calcification as a marker for aortic stenosis severity: assessment on 16-MDCT. AJR 2004;183 : 1813-1818[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Morghan-Hughes GJ, Owens PE, Roobottom CA, Marshall AJ. Three-dimensional volume quantification of aortic valve calcification using multislice computed tomography. Heart2003; 89:1191 -1194[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Lippert JA, White CS, Mason AC, Plotnick GA. Calcification of aortic valve detected incidentally on CT scans: prevalence and clinical significance. AJR 1995;164 : 73-77[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Schwarten DE. Radiologic examination of the heart. Cardiovasc Clin 1981;12 : 75-93[Medline]
  9. Green CE, Kelley MJ. A renewed role for fluoroscopy in the evaluation of cardiac disease. Radiol Clin North Am1980; 18:345 -357[Medline]
  10. Schott CR, Kotler MN, Parry WR, Segal BL. Mitral annular calcification: clinical and echocardiographic correlations. Arch Intern Med 1977; 137:1143 -1150[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Benjamin EJ, Plehn JF, D'Agostino RB, et al. Mitral annular calcification and the risk of stroke in an elderly cohort. N Engl J Med 1992; 327:374 -379[Abstract]
  12. Nair CK, Aronow WS, Sketch MH, et al. Clinical and echocardiographic characteristics of patients with mitral anular calcification: comparison with age- and sex-matched control subjects. Am J Cardiol 1983;51 : 992-995[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Boon A, Cheriex E, Lodder J, Kessels F. Cardiac valve calcification: characteristics of patients with calcification of the mitral annulus or aortic valve. Heart 1997;78 : 472-474[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Adler Y, Levinger U, Koren A, et al. Association between mitral annulus calcification and peripheral arterial atherosclerotic disease. Angiology 2000;51 : 639-646[Medline]
  15. Tuzcu EM, Block PC, Griffin B, Dinsmore R, Newell JB, Palacios IF. Percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy in patients with calcific mitral stenosis: immediate and long-term outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994; 23:1604 -1609[Abstract]
  16. Waller BF, Howard J, Fess S. Pathology of mitral valve stenosis and pure mitral regurgitation: Part I. Clin Cardiol1994; 17:330 -336[Medline]
  17. Bowe JC, Bland F, Sprague HB, White PD. Course of mitral stenosis without surgery: 10 and 20 year perspective. Ann Intern Med 1969; 52:741 -752
  18. Holen J, Aaslid R, Landmark K, Simonsen S. Determination of pressure gradient in mitral stenosis with a non-invasive ultrasound Doppler technique. Acta Med Scand 1976;199 : 455-460[Medline]
  19. Hatle L, Brubakk A, Tromsdal A, Angelsen B. Non-invasive assessment of pressure drop in mitral stenosis by Doppler ultrasound. Br Heart J 1978; 40:131 -140[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Martin RP, Rakowski H, Kleiman JH, Beaver W, London E, Popp RL. Reliability and reproducibility of two-dimensional echocardiography measurement of the stenotic mitral valve orifice area. Am J Cardiol 1979; 43:560 -568[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Bonow RO, Carabello B, de Leon AC Jr, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol1998; 32:1486 -1588[Free Full Text]
  22. Landis J, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33 : 159-174[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Carabello BA, Crawford FA. Valvular heart disease. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:32 -41[Free Full Text]
  24. Hunold P, Schmermund A, Seibel RM, Gronemeyer DH, Erbel R. Prevalence and clinical significance of accidental findings in electron-beam tomographic scans for coronary artery calcification. Eur Heart J 2001; 22:1748 -1758[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Aronow WS, Schwartz KS, Koenigsberg M. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of mitral annular calcium detected by chest roentgenograms correlated with mitral annular calcium diagnosed by echocardiography in elderly patients. Am J Noninvasive Cardiol 1987; 1:251 -253
  26. Furlan AJ, Craciun AR, Salcedo EE, Mellino M. Risk of stroke in patients with mitral annulus calcification. Stroke1984; 15:801 -803[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Tenenbaum A, Shemesh J, Fisman EZ, Motro M. Advanced mitral annular calcification is associated with severe coronary calcification on fast dual spiral computed tomography. Invest Radiol2000; 35:193 -198[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Ruhl KM, Das M, Koos R, et al. Variability of aortic valve calcification measurement with multislice spiral computed tomography. Invest Radiol 2006;41 : 370-373[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Muhlenbruch G, Wildberger JE, Koos R, et al. Calcium scoring of aortic valve calcification in aortic valve stenosis with a multislice computed tomography scanner: non-enhanced versus contrast-enhanced studies. Acta Radiol 2005;46 : 561-566[CrossRef][Medline]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mahnken, A. H.
Right arrow Articles by Koos, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mahnken, A. H.
Right arrow Articles by Koos, R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS