Aortic dimensions by multi-detector computed tomography vs. echocardiography

Blondheim, David; Vassilenko, Lubov; Glick, Yaïr; Asif, Aya; Nachtigal, Alicia; Meisel, Simcha; Shochat, Michael; Shotan, Avraham; Zeina, Abdel-Rauf

doi:10.1016/j.jjcc.2015.06.008

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By contrast, use of the I-I convention in enddiastole on TTE significantly underestimated the dimensions obtained with CT and MRI. These results were confirmed by other authors [15,18]. Most studies comparing the various methods used to assess aortic dimensions with 2D TTE in healthy individuals showed that the L-L convention yielded larger dimensions than the I-I convention [6][7][8]11].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Are Aortic Root and Ascending Aorta Diameters Measured by the Pediatric versus the Adult American Society of Echocardiography Guidelines Interchangeable?

Servato

Teixidó-Turà

Sabaté-Rotés

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ascending aorta diameters have important clinical value in the diagnosis, follow-up, and surgical indication of many aortic diseases. However, there is no uniformity among experts regarding ascending aorta diameter quantification by echocardiography. The aim of this study was to compare maximum aortic root and ascending aorta diameters determined by the diastolic leading edge (DLE) and the systolic inner edge (SIE) conventions in adult and pediatric patients with inherited cardiovascular diseases. Transthoracic echocardiograms were performed in 328 consecutive patients (260 adults and 68 children). Aorta diameters were measured twice at the root and ascending aorta by the DLE convention following the 2015 American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) adult guidelines and the SIE convention following the 2010 ASE pediatric guidelines. Comparison of the diameters measured by the two conventions in the overall population showed a non-significant underestimation of the diameter measured by the SIE convention at root level of 0.28 mm (CI −1.36; 1.93) and at tubular ascending aorta level of 0.17 mm (CI −1.69; 2.03). Intraobserver and interobserver variability were excellent. Maximum aorta diameter measured by the leading edge convention in end-diastole and the inner edge convention in mid-systole had similar values to a mild non-significant underestimation of the inner-to-inner method that permits them to be interchangeable when used in clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Are Aortic Root and Ascending Aorta Diameters Measured by the Pediatric versus the Adult American Society of Echocardiography Guidelines Interchangeable?

Servato

Teixidó-Turà

Sabaté-Rotés

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both CMR and CCT, also, allow comprehensive assessment of entire aorta for quantifying aortic dilation or the presence of coarctation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve. 31 CCT is the preferred imaging modality to assess maximum diameter in patients with dilated aorta and also for sizing the aorta before surgery, while CMR can be used for serial evaluation to limit radiation. 32…”

Section: Aetiology and Mechanisms Of Armentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-modality imaging assessment of native valvular regurgitation: an EACVI and ESC council of valvular heart disease position paper

Lancellotti

Pîbarot

Chambers

et al. 2022

European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging

162

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Valvular regurgitation represents an important cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Imaging is pivotal in the evaluation of native valve regurgitation and echocardiography is the primary imaging modality for this purpose. The imaging assessment of valvular regurgitation should integrate quantification of the regurgitation, assessment of the valve anatomy and function, and the consequences of valvular disease on cardiac chambers. In clinical practice, the management of patients with valvular regurgitation largely relies on the results of imaging. It is crucial to provide standards that aim at establishing a baseline list of measurements to be performed when assessing native valve regurgitation. The present document aims to present clinical guidance for the multi-modality imaging assessment of native valvular regurgitation.

show abstract

“…Most studies comparing 2-dimensional TTE with CT and MRI found that TTE significantly underestimates aortic root diameters compared with CT [162][163][164] and MRI, [163][164][165][166] likely related to off-axis image acquisition and root asymmetry. On the other hand, 3D TTE correlates well with CT. 165 Several studies also have demonstrated that abdominal ultrasound systematically underestimates the size of abdominal aortic aneurysms by ≈1 to 3 mm compared with CT. [167][168][169][170][171] In the nondissected thoracic and abdominal aorta, the agreement between diameter measurements obtained with CTA and MRA is good when the same analysis technique is used, [168][169][170][171] and interobserver agreement is excellent.…”

Section: Differences Within and Between Imaging Modalitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging and Surveillance of Chronic Aortic Dissection: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Fleischmann¹,

Afifi²,

Casanegra³

et al. 2022

Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All patients surviving an acute aortic dissection require continued lifelong surveillance of their diseased aorta. Late complications, driven predominantly by chronic false lumen degeneration and aneurysm formation, often require surgical, endovascular, or hybrid interventions to treat or prevent aortic rupture. Imaging plays a central role in the medical decision-making of patients with chronic aortic dissection. Accurate aortic diameter measurements and rigorous, systematic documentation of diameter changes over time with different imaging equipment and modalities pose a range of practical challenges in these complex patients. Currently, no guidelines or recommendations for imaging surveillance in patients with chronic aortic dissection exist. In this document, we present state-of-the-art imaging and measurement techniques for patients with chronic aortic dissection and clarify the need for standardized measurements and reporting for lifelong surveillance. We also examine the emerging role of imaging and computer simulations to predict aortic false lumen degeneration, remodeling, and biomechanical failure from morphological and hemodynamic features. These insights may improve risk stratification, individualize contemporary treatment options, and potentially aid in the conception of novel treatment strategies in the future.

show abstract

Aortic dimensions by multi-detector computed tomography vs. echocardiography

Abstract: There is considerable variability between MDCT and ECHO measurements of the ascending aorta. Measuring the aortic diameter by the MIX provides the closest measurements and is advised for long-term follow-up.

Cited by 15 publications

References 12 publications

Are Aortic Root and Ascending Aorta Diameters Measured by the Pediatric versus the Adult American Society of Echocardiography Guidelines Interchangeable?

Are Aortic Root and Ascending Aorta Diameters Measured by the Pediatric versus the Adult American Society of Echocardiography Guidelines Interchangeable?

Multi-modality imaging assessment of native valvular regurgitation: an EACVI and ESC council of valvular heart disease position paper

Imaging and Surveillance of Chronic Aortic Dissection: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About