Key result
Computed tomography effectively detected and evaluated intracardiac and intrapericardial masses in 5 patients, providing detailed assessment of disease extent including vessel invasion.
Why the study?
Does CT imaging effectively detect and evaluate intracardiac and intrapericardial masses?
Case Report (n=5)
Does CT imaging effectively detect and evaluate intracardiac and intrapericardial masses?
CT with dynamic contrast scanning is an effective imaging modality for detecting and evaluating the extent of intracardiac and intrapericardial masses.
May support CT for detailed cardiac mass assessment in select cases; leaves open its role versus echocardiography.
Computed tomographic (CT) equipment capable of high-resolution, rapid-sequence scanning allows detection of intracardiac and intrapericardial masses. Two patients with intrapericardial masses (pheochromocytoma, organized hematoma) and three patients with intracardiac masses (right ventricular rhabdomyosarcoma, right atrial metastasis, and left atrial thrombus) are presented. CT is the imaging method of choice for displaying pericardial masses directly and may be superior to echocardiography and angiocardiography in the detection of ventricular thrombi. In patients with cardiac tumors, CT evaluates extent of disease including invasion of contiguous vessels and pulmonary metastases better than echocardiography. Dynamic scanning after bolus intravenous injection of contrast material is recommended for the evaluation of patients with suspected masses involving the heart or pericardium.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gross et al. (1983) conducted a case report in Intracardiac and intrapericardial masses (n=5). Computed tomography (CT) vs. Echocardiography and angiocardiography was evaluated on Detection and evaluation of masses. Computed tomography effectively detected and evaluated intracardiac and intrapericardial masses in 5 patients, providing detailed assessment of disease extent including vessel invasion.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: