No abstract

Even though the tricuspid valve is no longer “forgotten”, it still remains poorly understood. In this review, we focus on some controversial and still unclear aspects of tricuspid anatomy as illustrated by noninvasive imaging techniques. In particular, we discuss the anatomical architecture of the so-called tricuspid annulus with its two components (i.e., the mural and the septal annulus), emphasizing the absence of any fibrous “ring” around the right atrioventricular junction. Then we discussed the extreme variability in number and size of leaflets (from two to six), highlighting the peculiarities of the septal leaflet as part of the septal atrioventricular junction (crux cordis). Finally, we describe the similarities and differences between the tricuspid and mitral valve, suggesting a novel terminology for tricuspid leaflets.

Background The use of stress perfusion-cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging remains limited in patients with implantable devices. The primary goal of the study was to assess the safety, image quality, and the diagnostic value of stress perfusion-CMR in patients with MR-conditional transvenous permanent pacemakers (PPM) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). Methods Consecutive patients with a transvenous PPM or ICD referred for adenosine stress-CMR were enrolled in this single-center longitudinal study. The CMR protocol was performed using a 1.5 T system according to current guidelines while all devices were put in MR-mode. Quality of cine, late-gadolinium-enhancement (LGE), and stress perfusion sequences were assessed. An ischemia burden of ≥ 1.5 segments was considered significant. We assessed the safety, image quality and the occurrence of interference of the magnetic field with the implantable device. In case of ischemia, we also assessed the correlation with the presence of significant coronary lesions on coronary angiography. Results Among 3743 perfusion-CMR examinations, 66 patients had implantable devices (1.7%). Image quality proved diagnostic in 98% of cases. No device damage or malfunction was reported immediately and at 1 year. Fifty patients were continuously paced during CMR. Heart rate and systolic blood pressure remained unchanged during adenosine stress, while diastolic blood pressure decreased (p = 0.007). Six patients (9%) had an ischemia-positive stress CMR and significant coronary stenoses were confirmed by coronary angiography in all cases. Conclusion Stress perfusion-CMR is safe, allows reliable ischemia detection, and provides good diagnostic value.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is one of the major causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide, with a high socioeconomic impact. Currently, various guidelines and recommendations have been published about chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). According to the recent European Society of Cardiology guidelines on chronic coronary syndrome, a multimodal imaging approach is strongly recommended in the evaluation of patients with suspected CAD. Today, in the current practice, non-invasive imaging methods can assess coronary anatomy through coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and/or inducible myocardial ischemia through functional stress testing (stress echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, single photon emission computed tomography—SPECT, or positron emission tomography—PET). However, recent trials (ISCHEMIA and REVIVED) have cast doubt on the previous conception of the management of patients with CCS, and nowadays it is essential to understand the limitations and strengths of each imaging method and, specifically, when to choose a functional approach focused on the ischemia versus a coronary anatomy-based one. Finally, the concept of a pathophysiology-driven treatment of these patients emerged as an important goal of multimodal imaging, integrating ‘anatomical’ and ‘functional’ information. The present review aims to provide an overview of non-invasive imaging modalities for the comprehensive management of CCS patients.

Background Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is considered the method of choice for evaluation of aortic root dilatation in congenital heart disease. Usually, a cross-sectional 2D cine stack is acquired perpendicular to the vessel’s axis. However, this method requires a considerable patient collaboration and precise planning of image planes. The present study compares a recently introduced 3D self-navigated free-breathing high-resolution whole heart CMR sequence (3D self nav) allowing a multiplanar retrospective reconstruction of the aortic root as an alternative to the 2D cine technique for determination of aortic root diameters. Methods A total of 6 cusp-commissure (CuCo) and cusp-cusp (CuCu) enddiastolic diameters were measured by two observers on 2D cine and 3D self nav cross-sectional planes of the aortic root acquired on a 1.5 T CMR scanner. Asymmetry of the aortic root was evaluated by the ratio of the minimal to the maximum 3D self nav CuCu diameter. CuCu diameters were compared to standard transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) aortic root diameters. Results Sixty-five exams in 58 patients (32 ± 15 years) were included. Typically, 2D cine and 3D self nav spatial resolution was 1.1–1.52 × 4.5-7 mm and 0.9–1.153 mm, respectively. 3D self nav yielded larger maximum diameters than 2D cine: CuCo 37.2 ± 6.4 vs. 36.2 ± 7.0 mm (p = 0.006), CuCu 39.7 ± 6.3 vs. 38.5 ± 6.5 mm (p < 0.001). CuCu diameters were significantly larger (2.3–3.9 mm, p < 0.001) than CuCo and TTE diameters on both 2D cine and 3D self nav. Intra- and interobserver variabilities were excellent for both techniques with bias of -0.5 to 1.0 mm. Intra-observer variability of the more experienced observer was better for 3D self nav (F-test p < 0.05). Aortic root asymmetry was more pronounced in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV: 0.73 (interquartile (IQ) 0.69; 0.78) vs. 0.93 (IQ 0.9; 0.96), p < 0.001), which was associated to a larger difference of maximum CuCu to TTE diameters: 5.5 ± 3.3 vs. 3.3 ± 3.8 mm, p = 0.033. Conclusion Both, the 3D self nav and 2D cine CMR techniques allow reliable determination of aortic root diameters. However, we propose to privilege the 3D self nav technique and measurement of CuCu diameters to avoid underestimation of the maximum diameter, particularly in patients with asymmetric aortic roots and/or BAV.