Aortic dissection other imaging findings
|
Aortic dissection Microchapters |
|
Diagnosis |
|---|
|
Treatment |
|
Special Scenarios |
|
Case Studies |
|
|
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]
Overview
Pre-operative angiography has not been associated with improved outcomes in retrospective analyses. Aortography is rarely used in the modern era. It can be used of the other imaging modalities are not available or are inconclusive.
Other Imaging Findings
Coronary Angiography
It is reasonable to perform coronary angiography in the following scenarios:
- Age over 60 years
- Presence of CAD risk factors
- History of prior myocardial infarction
Aortography
- The aortogram was previously considered the gold standard test for the diagnosis of aortic dissection, with a sensitivity of up to 88% and a specificity of about 94%. It is especially poor in the diagnosis of cases where the dissection is due to hemorrhage within the media without any initiating intimal tear.
- Although aortography has a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 94% in experienced hands, it has largely been replaced by noninvasive diagnostic techniques. It is helpful however, in determining the site of dissection, the relationship of the dissection the major aortic branches, as well as identifying the true and false lumens.
- Additionally, coronary angiography can be preformed at the same time. False negatives occur if the false lumen is already thrombosed, or when there is simultaneous opacification of both lumens.
Advantages of Aortogram
Disadvantages of Aortogram
- The disadvantages of the aortogram are that it is an invasive procedure and it requires the use of iodinated contrast material.