Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Multimodality Imaging of Aortic Dimensions: Comparison of Transthoracic Echocardiography with Multidetector Row Computed Tomography

2012; Wiley; Volume: 29; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/j.1540-8175.2012.01666.x

1540-8175

James F. Tsang, Matthew Lytwyn, Ashraf Farag, Matthew R. Zeglinski, Kerrett Wallace, Megan daSilva, Sheena Bohonis, Jonathan R. Walker, James W. Tam, Jacek Strzelczyk, Davinder S. Jassal,

Aortic aneurysm repair treatments

Background: With recent advances in multimodality cardiac imaging, a number of methods exist for the noninvasive assessment of aortic disease. Although multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) remains the gold standard for aortic measurements, there are a number of limitations including radiation and contrast‐induced nephropathy. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is an alternative to MDCT for providing accurate anatomic assessment of aortic root and ascending aorta dimensions. Objectives and Methods: To determine the accuracy of two‐dimensional (2D) TTE for determining aortic measurements in comparison to MDCT, a retrospective study of individuals with varying aortic root and ascending aorta dimensions was performed. Results: There were 116 patients (77 males, mean age 49 ± 12 years) in total. The maximum aortic diameters by 2D TTE were 26.1 ± 4.3 mm (annulus), 32.4 ± 5.6 mm (sinuses), 30.1 ± 5.9 mm (sinotubular [ST] junction), and 33.4 ± 7.3 mm (ascending aorta). The maximum aortic diameters by MDCT were 30.1 ± 4.1 mm (annulus), 35.8 ± 5.8 mm (sinuses), 33.2 ± 5.9 mm (ST junction), and 37.4 ± 7.6 mm (ascending aorta). There was good to excellent correlation between 2D TTE and MDCT at all four levels of the aorta (annulus: r = 0.84; sinuses: r = 0.93; ST junction: r = 0.93; ascending aorta: r = 0.88). There was a consistent underestimation of aortic measurements obtained by 2D TTE when compared to MDCT. Conclusion: 2DTTE is a feasible, accurate, and reproducible method for the noninvasive assessment of thoracic aortic diameters as compared to MDCT. (Echocardiography 2012;29:735‐741)