Aortic involvement in recent-onset giant cell (temporal) arteritis: A case–control prospective study using helical aortic computed tomodensitometric scan

Internal Medicine, Hôtel-Dieu, Place Alexis Ricordeau, Nantes Cedex 01, France.
Arthritis & Rheumatology (Impact Factor: 7.87). 05/2008; 59(5):670-6. DOI: 10.1002/art.23577
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The prevalence of the involvement of large vessels in giant cell arteritis (GCA) is 3-13%. Aortitis is the most serious complication of GCA. Computed tomodensitometric (CT) scan allows analysis of both the aortic wall and endoluminal part of the aorta. Therefore, we conducted a study using CT scan to analyze aortic abnormalities in patients with recent-onset GCA.
This prospective controlled study compared patients with biopsy-proven GCA with a matched control group based on sex, age, and cardiovascular risk factors. During the 4-week period following diagnosis of GCA, patients underwent an aortic CT scan. The aortic imaging results were blindly compared between both groups.
From January 5, 1998 to January 11, 1999, 22 patients and 22 controls were screened by CT scan for aortic involvement. Thickening of the aortic wall was more frequent among patients than controls (45.4% versus 13.6%; P = 0.02). Aortic thickening (mean 3.3 mm) was located on the ascending part of the thoracic aorta in 22.7% of the patients, with no evidence of thickening in the controls (P = 0.05). Thickening of the abdominal aortic wall was noted in 27.3% of the patients and none of the controls (P = 0.02).
This study suggests that inflammatory aortic thickening, detected by CT scan, occurs frequently at the time of diagnosis of GCA, and that this condition predominantly occurs on the ascending part of the aorta.


Available from: Pascal Chevalet, Oct 14, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Imaging is becoming a relevant tool for the assessment of patients with systemic vasculitis. This review focuses on recently generated data with potential clinical impact in the diagnosis, evaluation of disease extent and management of systemic vasculitis. Temporal artery examination by color duplex ultrasonography (CDUS) is a valuable approach to the diagnosis of giant-cell arteritis. Evaluation of additional arteries may increase its diagnostic performance. However, CDUS-specific findings may not be detected in arteries with early inflammation and CDUS-guidance of temporal artery biopsy does not seem to significantly increase its diagnostic yield. Large-vessel involvement detected by computed tomography angiography occurs in two out of three of patients with giant-cell arteritis at diagnosis. Furthermore, significant ascending aortic dilatation can be observed in one out of three of patients after long-term follow-up. Objective cut-offs for detecting large-vessel inflammation by positron emission tomography (PET) are trying to be established through prospective studies. PET may also contribute to the assessment of disease extent in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis or Behçet's disease. Data generated by existing and emerging imaging techniques are expected to have a major impact in the diagnosis, appraisal of disease extent, evaluation of disease activity and response to treatment in patients with systemic vasculitis.
    Current Opinion in Rheumatology 01/2015; 27(1):53-62. DOI:10.1097/BOR.0000000000000130 · 5.07 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The diagnosis of large-vessel vasculitis has experienced substantial improvement in recent years. While Takayasu arteritis diagnosis relies on imaging, the involvement of epicranial arteries by giant-cell arteritis facilitates histopathological confirmation. When appropriately performed temporal artery biopsy has high sensitivity and specificity. However, an optimal biopsy is not always achievable and, occasionally, the superficial temporal artery may not be involved. Imaging in its various modalities including colour-duplex ultrasonography, computed tomography angiography, magnetic resonance angiography and positron emission tomography, are emerging as important procedures for the diagnosis and assessment of disease extent in large-vessel vasculitis. Recent contributions to the better performance and interpretation of temporal artery biopsies as well as advances in imaging are the focus of the present review.
    Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America 02/2015; 41(1):125-140. DOI:10.1016/j.rdc.2014.10.001 · 1.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction. (18)F-FDG-PET visualises inflammation. Both atherosclerosis and giant cell arteritis cause vascular inflammation, but distinguishing the two may be difficult. The goal of this study was to assess interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy of (18)F-FDG-PET for the detection of large artery involvement in giant cell arteritis (GCA). Methods. 31 (18)F-FDG-PET/CT scans were selected from 2 databases. Four observers assessed vascular wall (18)F-FDG uptake, initially without and subsequently with predefined observer criteria (i.e., vascular wall (18)F-FDG uptake compared to liver or femoral artery (18)F-FDG uptake). External validation was performed by two additional observers. Sensitivity and specificity of (18)F-FDG-PET were determined by comparing scan results to a consensus diagnosis. Results. The highest interobserver agreement (kappa: 0.96 in initial study and 0.79 in external validation) was observed when vascular wall (18)F-FDG uptake higher than liver uptake was used as a diagnostic criterion, although agreement was also good without predefined criteria (kappa: 0.68 and 0.85). Sensitivity and specificity were comparable for these methods. The criterion of vascular wall (18)F-FDG uptake equal to liver (18)F-FDG uptake had low specificity. Conclusion. Standardization of image assessment for vascular wall (18)F-FDG uptake promotes observer agreement, enables comparative studies, and does not appear to result in loss of diagnostic accuracy compared to nonstandardized assessment.
    BioMed Research International 01/2015; 2015:914692. DOI:10.1155/2015/914692 · 2.71 Impact Factor