Key result
Echocardiography and MRI provided similar measurements of the coarcted thoracic aorta compared to angiography, with no significant differences except for the descending aorta (P=0.04).
Why the study?
Does echocardiography or magnetic resonance imaging provide superior evaluation of aortic dimensions compared to angiography in patients undergoing coarctation balloon angioplasty?
Observational (n=13)
Blinded
Does echocardiography or magnetic resonance imaging provide superior evaluation of aortic dimensions compared to angiography in patients undergoing coarctation balloon angioplasty?
Echocardiography and MRI provide comparable and accurate definitions of the coarcted thoracic aorta compared to angiography, allowing for individualized imaging selection based on clinical needs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports noninvasive imaging alternatives in coarctation; leaves open prospective validation against angiography.
Mendelsohn et al. (1997) conducted an observational in Coarctation of the aorta (n=13). Echocardiography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs. Angiography was evaluated on Dimensions of the aorta (isthmus, coarctation, descending aorta, and isthmus length). Echocardiography and MRI provided similar measurements of the coarcted thoracic aorta compared to angiography, with no significant differences except for the descending aorta (P=0.04).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: