Key result
CT outperforms TEE for pericardial thickening, showing discrepant findings in ~23% of cases.
Why the study?
The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound and computed tomography for detecting pericardial effusion and constrictive pericarditis were not well established.
Does computed tomography improve the detection of pericardial effusion and thickening compared to transesophageal echocardiogram in patients with suspected pericarditis?
Comparison
Computed tomography vs transesophageal echocardiogram
Design
Retrospective single-centre observational study with blinded CT image review
Authors
Loading...
CT outperforms TEE for pericardial thickening; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before guiding practice.
Observational (n=43)
Single-blind (radiologists blinded to TEE findings)
No
Does computed tomography improve the detection of pericardial effusion and thickening compared to transesophageal echocardiogram in patients with suspected pericarditis?
Computed tomography is more sensitive than transesophageal echocardiography for detecting isolated pericardial thickening in patients with suspected pericarditis.
Cruite et al. (2014) conducted an observational in Pericarditis (n=43). Computed tomography (CT) vs. Transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) was evaluated on Sensitivity and specificity for pericardial effusion and constrictive pericarditis (discrepancy between CT and TEE). Computed tomography is sensitive to pericardial effusion and thickening, whereas TEE seems insensitive to isolated pericardial thickening, with discrepant findings in 10 of 43 cases.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: