Key result
MRI demonstrated significantly higher detection rates for intimal flap (100% vs 81.7%), intimal tear, and mural thrombosis compared to CT, while CT was superior for detecting aortic calcification.
Why the study?
To compare the diagnostic value and imaging features of aortic dissection between CT and MRI.
Does MRI improve the detection of specific imaging features of aortic dissection compared to CT in patients with diagnosed AD?
Observational (n=120)
Does MRI improve the detection of specific imaging features of aortic dissection compared to CT in patients with diagnosed AD?
Absolute Event Rate: 100% vs 81.7%
MRI is superior to CT for detecting intimal flaps, tears, and mural thrombus in aortic dissection, whereas CT is better for identifying aortic calcification and very small (<1mm) intimal tears.
MRI detection advantages in AD support prospective outcome trials; should not yet change practice.
Aortic dissection(AD) is a life-threatening disease due to a tear in the intimal layer of the aorta within the aortic wall. To compare diagnostic value and imaging of AD between computed tomography(CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). 120 AD patients diagnosed were examined with 64-slice CT and 1.5 MRI, the imaging data of true and false lumen, intimal flap, intimal tear, mural thrombus and aortic calcification were compared. The intimal flap rate of CT and MRI was 81.7% and 100%, respectively; The intimal tear rate of CT and MRI was 68.3% and 83.3%, respectively; The rate of mural thrombus in CT and MRI was 26.7% and 54.2%, respectively; The rate of aortic calcification in CT and MRI was 62.5% and 18.3%, respectively; The number of patients with intimal tear lower than 1mm in CT and MRI was 5 and 0, respectively. Both CT and MRI can show the true and false lumen well, but the detection rate of intimal flap, intimal tear and mural thrombosis in MRI is significantly higher than that in CT, and the detection rate of aortic calcification and intimal tear<1mm in CT is higher than that in MRI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Aortic dissection (n=120). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) vs. Computed tomography (CT) was evaluated on Detection rate of intimal flap. MRI demonstrated significantly higher detection rates for intimal flap (100% vs 81.7%), intimal tear, and mural thrombosis compared to CT, while CT was superior for detecting aortic calcification.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: