4.5 Article

Motion characterization of aortic wall and intimal flap by ECG-gated CT in patients with chronic B-dissection

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 72, Issue 1, Pages 146-153

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.06.024

Keywords

MDCT; ECG gating; CT-angiography; Aortic dissection; Intimal flap motion; Aortic distensibility

Funding

  1. University of Heidelberg [Az 9155.1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale and objectives: To evaluate whether dynamic computed tomography (CT)-imaging can provide functional vessel information inpatients with chronic aortic dissection type Stanford-B (ADB). Materials and methods: In 32 patients, ECG-gated CT-angiography images were obtained. Cross-sectional area change and wall distensibility were investigated by semiautomatic vessel area segmentation at the end of aortic arch. Significance of distensibility differences was tested with regard to the aortic diameter, and the oscillation of the intimal flap was analyzed. Results: The aorta could be segmented successfully in all patients. These were separated into three subgroups: (A) 6 patients with an aortic diameter <4 cm and without a visible intimal flap, (B) 9 patients with an aortic diameter <4 cm, and (C) 17 individuals with an aortic diameter >= 4 cm; (B) and (C) having a visible intimal flap. Differences in distensibility, between the subgroups were not significant. Overall mean distensibility was D-tot = (1.3 +/- 0.6) x 10(-5) Pa-1. Analysis of intimal flap oscillation showed a pulsatile short axis diameter decrease of the true lumen of up to 29%. Conclusion: Dynamic, ECG-gated CT-angiography can demonstrate pulsatile changes in aortic area and a highly variable motion of the intimal flap. Aortic distensibility appears independent of diameter or presence of a intimal flap. Follow-up studies may show correlation with possible complications. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available