Computed tomography for follow-up of chronic aortic dissections

Radiology (Impact Factor: 6.87). 07/1981; 139(3):655-60. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.139.3.7232732
Source: PubMed


Patients who have chronic dissections of the aorta are prone to re-dissection, extension of dissection, aortic aneurysm, and aortic rupture. Computed tomography (CT) with contrast enhancement provides a convenient, noninvasive method for follow-up of these patients. We used CT in a group of twelve patients who were treated for aortic dissection. CT demonstrated re-dissection, aneurysmal dilation of the aorta, and delayed filling of the false lumen. CT also showed persistent patency of the false lumen in almost all of the postoperative cases.

1 Read
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The technical accuracy and clinical efficacy of thoracic CAT scans in 302 surgical patients were retrospectively reviewed. We conclude that thoracic CAT scans should be ordered selectively since the technical accuracy of existing radiographic studies in detecting disease is equally high (greater than 90 percent) and the clinical efficacy does not differ substantially (less than 16 percent). The accuracy of CAT scans in staging carcinoma (the extent of the lesion or nodes) is only 58 percent. The technical limitations of these scans include (1) a lack of specificity because of the high incidence of false-positive lymph nodes, (2) a low or unreliable yield from needle aspiration, and (3) unreliable findings due to altered anatomy by previous treatment or associated disease. Surgical treatment regarding operability and resectability should not be solely based on CAT scans. These scans appear to be a useful screening test for chronic vascular disease and localization of obscure thoracic infections.
    The American Journal of Surgery 08/1982; 144(1):35-43. DOI:10.1016/0002-9610(82)90598-0 · 2.29 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of computed tomography (CT) versus aortography is evaluated in a limited study of 17 cases of aortic dissection (AD). With the constraints of the present state of the technology and lack of availability of CT scanners at some centers, aortography remains the premier and often the only diagnostic test to choose in an emergency. CT, however, may be an asset in the diagnosis of AD when: (1) atypical or misleading clinical presentations are evident that do not require aortography; (2) aortography is contraindicated in a weakened patient, when there is no emergency; (3) aortography is a risk while there is a strong suggestion of AD; (4) patency of a false channel must be confirmed. These circumstances were encountered in five patients. In addition, a localized infrarenal AD was fortuitously discovered in two patients presenting with abdominal visceral cancer. On patient follow-up, CT is less invasive and may be performed in asymptomatic patients undergoing treatment, thereby facilitating the early detection of complications. Detailed computed tomograms often yield superior diagnostic information only if the CT study includes rapid sequential scans immediately following a fast intravenous bolus of contrast material.
    CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 12/1982; 5(6):285-291. DOI:10.1007/BF02552799 · 2.07 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Postoperative angiography and computerised tomography were performed in 10 patients 8 to 57 months after surgical repair (nine composite, one distal graft) of aneurysms of the thoracic aorta (six dissecting, four true aneurysms). Angiography and angio-CT showed chronic dissection of the distal aorta in five of six patients with dissecting aneurysms and detected a pseudoaneurysm originating from the distal suture line in another patient. CT may serve as an initial procedure for postoperative examinations after surgery of aortic aneurysms to demonstrate the state of the false lumen and the formation of pseudoaneurysms. The coronary arteries and aortic valve function have to be evaluated by angiography.
    British Journal of Radiology 12/1983; 56(671):797-804. DOI:10.1259/0007-1285-56-671-797 · 2.03 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications