Aortic dissection aortography

	Aortic dissection Microchapters
Home
Patient Information
Overview
Historical Perspective
Classification
Pathophysiology
Causes
Differentiating Aortic dissection from other Diseases
Epidemiology and Demographics
Risk Factors
Screening
Natural History, Complications and Prognosis
Diagnosis
Diagnostic Study of Choice
History and Symptoms
Physical Examination
Laboratory Findings
Electrocardiogram
X-ray
Echocardiography and Ultrasound
CT scan
MRI
Other Imaging Findings
Other Diagnostic Studies
Treatment
Medical Therapy
Surgery
Primary Prevention
Secondary Prevention
Special Scenarios
Management during Pregnancy
Case Studies
Case #1
;

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor-In-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2]

Overview

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.

The advantage of the aortogram in the diagnosis of aortic dissection is that it can delineate the extent of involvement of the aorta and branch vessels and can diagnose aortic insufficiency.

The disadvantages of the aortogram are that it is an invasive procedure and it requires the use of iodinated contrast material.

Although aortography has a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 94% in experienced hands, it has largely been replaced by noninvasive diagnostic techniques.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 leumen is already thrombosed, or when there is simultaneous opacification of both lumens.