PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 1, 1992Circulation296 citations

Diagnosis of thoracic aortic dissection. Magnetic resonance imaging versus transesophageal echocardiography.

View Full Paper
Christoph Nienaber
Christoph NienaberInterventional Cardiology
RSRolf Peter SpielmannWittenberg UniversityYKYskert Von KodolitschVascular / Pulmonary Vascular

Structured PICO

Does MRI compared to TEE improve diagnostic specificity for thoracic aortic dissection in patients with suspected dissection?

P
Population
53 consecutive patients with clinically suspected aortic dissection
I
Intervention
ECG-triggered magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
C
Comparator
Transesophageal two-dimensional echocardiography combined with color-coded Doppler flow imaging (TEE)
O
Outcome
Sensitivity and specificity for detecting a dissection of the thoracic aortasurrogate

MRI and TEE are both highly sensitive for diagnosing thoracic aortic dissection, but MRI provides superior specificity, particularly for avoiding false-positive findings in the ascending aorta.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Aortic dissection requires prompt and reliable diagnosis to reduce the high mortality. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of both ECG-triggered magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transesophageal two-dimensional echocardiography combined with color-coded Doppler flow imaging (TEE) for the diagnosis of thoracic aortic dissection and associated epiphenomena. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-three consecutive patients with clinically suspected aortic dissection were subjected to a dual noninvasive imaging protocol in random order; imaging results were compared and validated against the independent morphological "gold standard" of intraoperative findings (n = 27), necropsy (n = 7), and/or contrast angiography (n = 53). No serious side effects were encountered with either imaging method. In contrast to a precursory screening transthoracic echogram, the sensitivities of both MRI and TEE were 100% for detecting a dissection of the thoracic aorta irrespective of its location. The specificity of TEE, however, was lower than the specificity of MRI for a dissection (TEE, 68.2% versus MRI, 100%; p less than 0.005), which resulted mainly from false-positive TEE findings confined to the ascending segment of the aorta (TEE, 78.8% versus MRI, 100%; p less than 0.01). In addition, MRI proved to be more sensitive than TEE in detecting the formation of thrombus in the false lumen of both the aortic arch (p less than 0.01) and the descending segment of the aorta (p less than 0.05). There were no discrepancies between the two imaging techniques in detecting the site of entry to a dissection, aortic regurgitation, or pericardial effusion. CONCLUSIONS: Both MRI and TEE are atraumatic, safe, and highly sensitive methods to identify and classify acute and subacute dissections of the entire thoracic aorta. TEE, however, is associated with lower specificity for lesions in the ascending aorta. These results may still favor TEE as a semi-invasive diagnostic procedure after a precursory screening transthoracic echogram in suspected aortic dissection, but they establish MRI as an excellent method to avoid false-positive findings. Anatomic mapping by MRI may emerge as the most comprehensive approach and morphological standard to guide surgical interventions.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Nienaber et al. (1992) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1c8933973ffece4bc3f400https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.85.2.434
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper