4.7 Article

Relationship between fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in the large vessels and late aortic diameter in giant cell arteritis

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 47, 期 8, 页码 1179-1184

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/ken119

关键词

giant cell arteritis; temporal arteritis; vasculitis; large-vessel vasculitis; aorta; Positron Emission tomography; fluorodeoxyglucose; aortic dilatation; vascular inflammation; aortic aneurysm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. GCA carries an increased risk of developing thoracic aortic aneurysms. Previous work with fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET has shown that the aorta is frequently involved in this type of vasculitis. We wanted to investigate whether there is a correlation between the extent of vascular FDG uptake during the acute phase of GCA and the aortic diameter at late follow-up. Methods. All patients with biopsy-proven GCA who ever underwent an FDG-PET scan in our centre were asked to undergo a CT scan of the aorta. The diameter of the aorta was measured at six different levels (ascending aorta, aortic arch, descending aorta, abdominal suprarenal, juxtarenal and infrarenal aorta) and the volumes of the thoracic and of the abdominal aorta were calculated. Results. Forty-six patients agreed to participate (32 females, 14 males). A mean of 46.7 +/- 29.9 months elapsed between diagnosis and CT scan. All aortic dimensions were significantly smaller in women than in men, except for the diameter of the ascending aorta. Patients who had an increased FDG uptake in the aorta at diagnosis of GCA, had a significantly larger diameter of the ascending aorta (P=0.025) and descending aorta (P=0.044) and a significantly larger volume of the thoracic aorta (P=0.029). In multivariate analysis, FDG uptake at the thoracic aorta was associated with late volume of the thoracic aorta (P=0.039). Conclusion. GCA-patients with increased FDG uptake in the aorta may be more prone to develop thoracic aortic dilatation than GCA patients without this sign of aortic involvement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据