Key result
Aortic measurement discrepancies across imaging modalities reflect differing dimensional definitions rather than errors.
Why the study?
Clinicians frequently encounter discrepant measurements of the ascending aorta within or between imaging modalities, which complicates clinical assessments regarding aortic growth and surgical indications.
How do discrepancies in thoracic aorta measurements arise across different imaging modalities and how should they be interpreted?
How do discrepancies in thoracic aorta measurements arise across different imaging modalities and how should they be interpreted?
Discrepancies in thoracic aorta measurements across imaging modalities are common and stem from different dimensional definitions, requiring careful interpretation for clinical management.
Aortic measurement discrepancies warrant cautious clinical interpretation; leaves open standardization of imaging protocols.
Clinicians often encounter discrepant measurements of the ascending aorta that impede, complicate, and impair appropriate clinical assessment-including key issues of presence or absence of aortic growth, rate of growth, and need for surgical intervention. These discrepancies may arise within a single modality (computed tomography scan, magnetic resonance imaging, or echocardiography) or between modalities. The authors explore the origins and significance of these discrepancies, revealing that some "truth" usually underlies all the discrepant measurements, which individually look at the ascending aorta with different perspectives and dimensional definitions. The authors conclude with a practical "question and answer" section that addresses common specific issues in interpretation and management of patients in the real-world setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elefteriades et al. (2020) conducted a review in Discrepant measurements of the ascending aorta. Discrepant measurements of the ascending aorta across imaging modalities often reflect different dimensional definitions rather than errors, requiring careful clinical interpretation.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: