Abstract
Accurate and timely assessment of suspected acute aortic syndrome is crucial in this life-threatening condition. Imaging with CT plays a central role in the diagnosis to allow expedited management. Diagnosis can be made using locally available expertise with optimized scanning parameters, making full use of recent advances in CT technology. Each imaging centre must optimize their protocols to allow accurate diagnosis, to optimize radiation dose and in particular to reduce the risk of false-positive diagnosis that may simulate disease. This document outlines the principles for the acquisition of motion-free imaging of the aorta in this context.
INTRODUCTION
Timely and accurate assessment of suspected acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is vital in this potentially life-threatening condition with significant pre-hospital and in-hospital mortality rates of up to 20% and 30%, respectively.1 There are many definitions of AAS; however, for the purpose of this document, AAS is defined as aortic dissection, intramural haematoma and the complications arising from penetrating atherosclerotic aortic ulcer.2–4 These are not mutually exclusive and may represent variations on the same disease spectrum.4–7 Different classifications of aortic dissection exist,8,9 but to avoid confusion, we recommend using the most recently proposed classification of defining dissection as follows: Type A, involving the ascending aorta; Type B, limited to aorta portion distal to left subclavian artery; and Type B with aortic arch involvement, involving the arch (between the innominate and left subclavian arteries) but not involving the ascending aorta.10 The classification reflects the current management approach, which supports that Type B dissection can be managed conservatively. With recent advances in CT scanning technology and increasing expertise in cardiovascular CT, the purpose of these recommendations are to outline the best practice for the investigation of suspected AAS so that unequivocal diagnosis can be made based on imaging. Specifically, accurate motion-free imaging is vital to eliminate the possibility of false-positive diagnoses, needless patient transfer and potentially disastrous unnecessary surgery, all of which have been reported.11–16
Assessment of pre-test likelihood
Recommendation 1
Assessment of pre-test clinical probability of AAS should be performed using American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidance.17
Initial evaluation of AAS should be based upon careful history and clinical examination (i.e. assessing for peripheral pulse deficits and potential end organ damage secondary to dissection) resulting in the ability to determine a pre-test likelihood of AAS. A summary of pre-test likelihood is shown in Figure 1 which categorizes patients into low, intermediate or high likelihood of AAS.17
Figure 1.
Risk stratification for acute aortic syndrome and appropriate management strategy.
Recommendation 2
Patients deemed to have intermediate or high risk should proceed to have imaging to establish a definitive diagnosis. In patients with low clinical risk, an alternative diagnosis should be considered but definitive imaging may also be required.
Patients with high-risk conditions such as those with increased wall stress (e.g. hypertension, phaeochromocytoma, cocaine use) and aortic medial abnormalities (e.g. Marfan, Loeys–Dietz, Ehlers–Danlos, Turner syndromes, inflammatory vasculitides) have increased risks of developing thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection.18–23 High-risk clinical features and examinations should also be borne in mind, allowing for appropriate patient selection for imaging. Pre-test likelihood assessment should be performed to exclude other causes and select appropriate patients for timely imaging.
Imaging modality and technique
Recommendation 3
When imaging is deemed appropriate, CT scan is the imaging modality of choice in acute scenario.
Transthoracic echocardiography
Transthoracic echocardiography usually allows adequate assessment of the aorta and can often diagnose involvement of the aortic root and proximal ascending aorta. However, other segments (e.g. the aortic arch, proximal descending aorta and abdominal aorta) are sometimes difficult to see owing to inadequate acoustic window. The value of transthoracic echocardiography is further limited in non-standard patients (e.g. abnormal chest wall configuration, obesity, pre-existing pulmonary emphysema, or patients on mechanical ventilation).
Transoesophageal echocardiography
The proximity of the oesophagus to the aorta allows high-quality images of the aorta to be obtained. The high accuracy of transoesophageal echocardiography for the diagnosis of aortic dissection has been reported previously.24,25 The largest series examining ascending aortic dissection shows a sensitivity and specificity of 96.8% and 100%, respectively.26 The main drawbacks of transoesophageal echocardiography are sedation requirement and access to appropriate expertise.
CT
The accuracy of CT in the diagnosis of aortic dissection is high with sensitivity and specificity ranging around 98–100%. As per evidence based on the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection registry27 and the Spanish Registry of Acute Aortic Syndromes,28 CT is already the preferred imaging modality and was used in 74% and 77% of patients in each registry, respectively. One of the major drawbacks of CT is the pulsation artefact which is addressed in this article.
MRI
MRI has very high sensitivity (97–100%) and specificity (94–100%) for the diagnosis of aortic dissection.29,30 MRI is free from ionizing radiation, but limitations are low availability and time taken for examination (even in experienced sites, imaging time can be 20–30 min) means lack of suitability in acute setting.
Given the available evidence, CT is recommended as the imaging modality of choice in the acute scenario because of accuracy, ease of access and relatively quick examination time.5,31 Once AAS is confirmed, in addition, echocardiography may be used to assess complications such as aortic valve dysfunction, pericardial tamponade, or wall motion abnormalities, but this should not delay definite surgical management. In equivocal cases of acute intramural haematoma, a characteristic ‘‘echo-free space or echolucent area’’ within the thickened aortic wall that may be sought in supportive of diagnosis.31–34 MRI/MR angiogram is not recommended in acute scenario but is useful in the context of follow-up of known aortic dissections, particularly in young patients35 in line with the as low as reasonably practical principle of radiation dose optimization.
Recommendation 4
All CT scans should be performed with the aim of producing motion-free images of the aortic root, which is prone to pulsation artefact (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Ungated CT angiogram of the aorta demonstrating pulsation artefact (arrows).
In systems with 64-detector-row arrays (or 80-detector-row arrays—these systems may be configured as 128 or 160 slices per rotation systems depending upon technical details of reconstruction), this should involve routine use of electrocardiogram (ECG) synchronization.36,37 Prospective triggering should be used where possible in order to reduce radiation dose. Retrospective gating usually incurs a penalty of significantly higher radiation dose. A dose–length product (DLP) for retrospective thoracic CT angiogram can be as high as 2547 mGy cm−1,38 although there are specific instances where this may have to be performed (see Specific protocol examples section). Broad detector array systems, e.g. 128 detector rows (e.g. Philips iCT; Philips, Andover, MA), 256 detector rows (e.g. GE Revolution; General Electrics, Milwaukee, WI) or 320 detector rows (e.g. Toshiba Aquilion One; Toshiba, Irvine, CA) or dual-source systems, should be optimized to allow motion-free imaging which may not require ECG synchronization if temporal resolution is rapid enough, but this depends upon scanner capabilities.
Recommendation 5
A non-contrast ECG synchronization CT scan should be performed to look for a rim of hyper-attenuation around the aortic wall (Figure 3).
Figure 3.
Non-contrast CT demonstrating typical appearance of a hyperattenuating crescentic ring that can be seen in acute intramural haematoma (arrowheads).
This should be performed prior to the contrast-enhanced study. The use of a non-contrast scan may reduce the likelihood of false-negative diagnosis on contrast studies in cases of isolated subtle intramural haematoma. Incidences vary but range from 6% to 30%.17,39–41 In addition, a non-contrast scan may enable the visualization of acute haemorrhagic content within the aortic wall that can be associated with the other forms of AAS2 and also localized rupture into the pericardium. Where possible, a low-dose setting should be utilized. The non-contrast scan does not need to encompass the whole aorta and can be limited to covering from aortic arch to diaphragmatic sulcus.
Coverage
Recommendation 6
Coverage should be limited to thorax from aortic arch to diaphragmatic sulcus in the first instance, unless the patient is deemed high risk or has known disease.
Initial coverage should be as for a CT Thorax (covering aortic arch to diaphragmatic sulcus). As the diagnostic rate for positive findings may be as low as 2.7%,42,43 coverage should be limited in the first instance in patients with intermediate pre-test probability in order to avoid unnecessary radiation dose. If the scan proves positive, then a repeat scan can be performed with extended coverage to the common femoral arteries to allow for endovascular access planning and to fully delineate the full extent of the dissection. In those patients deemed “high risk” for dissection following risk assessment, particularly with abdominal and/or lower limb symptoms/signs, it is reasonable to perform complete coverage of the entire aorta and to include the iliofemoral arteries from the outset. In addition, in situations where there is known aortic dissection, extended coverage is mandatory.
Premedication
In the acute setting, we do not advocate the use of beta-blocker medication to slow the heart rate (HR).
Patient size
Patient size or body mass index (BMI)-adjusted tube current/voltage should be employed for maximum dose optimization. As a general rule, lower BMI will allow for the use of flow tube voltage (kVp) and provided that tube current is also optimized, dose can be reduced. Lowering kVp will affect image contrast and will allow for the use of less iodine intravenous contrast (see Recommendation 8 section).
Scan initiation and contrast Regime
Recommendation 7
A dedicated injection protocol should be used, taking into account the speed of scan acquisition and coverage with the aim to achieve adequate contrast concentration of at least 250 HU in the aorta.
There are three distinct methods of scan initiation that may be used.
Fixed delay: this must take into account the contrast injection rate, contrast concentration, table feed speed, scanner detector width and perceived patient cardiac output. This is effectively a prediction and is not recommended.
Test bolus: this technique will allow homogeneous contrast enhancement and takes into account the patient's haemodynamic status. However, a disadvantage is that it requires a small increase in the overall contrast medium dose for the test bolus (usually ≤20 ml).44 Lower tube voltage protocols for test bolus imaging can be used to reduce radiation further.45
Bolus tracking: with a region of interest placed in the ascending thoracic aorta, the scan is commenced once a pre-determined threshold Hounsfield unit has been reached. It should be noted that in AAS, there is a risk that if the region of interest is incorrectly placed (e.g. as can occur in the false lumen of a dissected aorta), inappropriate triggering may occur. The operator should be aware that manual initiation may be required in this instance.
The contrast injection should be given via the right arm to eliminate the streak artefacts that might be caused by injection from the left side, obscuring assessment of head and neck vessels that may potentially be involved. The amount of contrast and rate of injection depends upon the speed of scan acquisition, tube voltage, patient size and z-axis coverage, as well as the iodine concentration used and whether a saline bolus chaser is used. The aim is to achieve adequate contrast concentration of at least 250 HU in the aorta.46 The use of a saline flush is recommended as this produces a higher contrast peak opacification for any given iodine flux and makes most efficient use of administered contrast.47
On the most recent generation of CT scanners, it is now feasible to use low tube voltage for routine imaging of the aorta, even in large-sized patients (often in conjunction with iterative reconstruction techniques). Owing to the greater photon absorption of iodinated contrast at energies nearer 70 kVp, this results in greater relative vascular enhancement. This in turn allows for smaller volumes of contrast to be used at lower flow rates (iodine delivery rates of 1.3–1.5 g s−1). Similarly, the use of high-pitch dual-source systems need less iodine delivery rate but owing to acquisition speed, adjustment of the acquisition delay may be required.48 Biphasic or triphasic injections should be considered to reduce contrast dose, produce a uniform enhancement pattern without affecting the maximal enhancement and also minimize artefacts from dense contrast material within the superior vena cava. Patient-specific protocols can also be employed and may achieve more uniform contrast enhancement.49
Recommendation 8
The key to adequate contrast opacification is to achieve an iodine delivery rate of at least 1.6 g s−1 (ideally up to 2 g s−1) when using a tube voltage of 120 kVp.
The two factors to consider when calculating iodine flux are the iodine concentration of the contrast media and the injection rate, i.e. 300 mg of iodine per millilitre injected at 6.7 ml s−1 vs contrast media of 400 mg of iodine per millilitre injected at 5 ml s−1. It is worth noting that patient factors also affect iodine delivery rate (i.e. cardiac output and weight). Therefore, it is recommended that contrast volume should be determined based on the patient's weight, usually delivering at least 300-mg iodine per kilogram for examinations of the whole aorta with 64-detector row systems. However, advanced broad detector array or dual-source systems may permit lower volumes in view of their increased speed of acquisition.48
If using a 64-detector-row CT for the entirety of the aorta, a decrease in aortic enhancement in the descending aorta may be observed when using a biphasic protocol. However, the decrease in aortic enhancement usually does not fall below diagnostic acceptability and often remains above the 250 HU.50 Whilst the aim is to get uniform enhancement throughout the entire aorta, but in the descending and abdominal aorta, this may on occasion be difficult to achieve. However, in most cases, the abdominal aorta can be delineated sufficiently to visualize the dissection and the perfusion of the mesenteric and renal arteries without a need for a repeat examination. Moreover, intramural haematoma and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer are relatively rare in the abdominal aorta. Multiphase injection protocols may enable more uniform vascular enhancement throughout the entire aorta, and if available should be considered.51
Optimizing CT parameters
Although diagnosis of AAS can be made using non-gated CT techniques, image quality at the aortic root is often suboptimal owing to motion artefact. This limits the diagnostic confidence and may on occasion mimic aortic dissection, leading to unnecessary further investigation and treatment, including sternotomy/thoracotomy. The prevalence of aortic motion artefacts with non-gated CT has been reported to be high as 57–93% in some series.52–54 With ECG synchronization, the occurrence of this artefact is less common, allowing motion-free visualization of the aortic root and proximal coronary arteries in almost all cases.55,56
To allow for prospective acquisition of the aorta, systems with detector coverage of at least 32 mm in the z-axis are recommended to make breath-holding possible during the whole scan acquisition. ECG synchronization must be available to allow co-registration with heart rhythm. Scanners with ≥64 detector rows should be used in conjunction with narrow reconstructed slice thickness (<1 mm) in order to provide adequate multiplanar reformats, preferably with isotropic resolution utilizing small voxel size through the use of a small field of view tailored to the aorta.
Specific protocol examples
For each scanner type, it is important that dedicated protocols are used and optimized. The protocols outlined below should be used as a guide, and variations may exist depending on differing parameters as outlined above. These protocols are advocated based upon expert British Society of Cardiovascular Imaging user recommendations and in collaboration with UK application specialists.
Basic concept
For a 64-detector-row system (including “128-slice” scanners and similar), prospective (“step-and-shoot”) acquisition should be employed where possible with phase selection based on HR. This is because the phase with minimal motion of the aortic root varies with HR. At HR <65 beats per minute (bpm), this is usually the end-diastolic phase. With HR >65 bpm, this is usually end-systolic phase.55 Where phase selection is not adjustable (e.g. on a scanner with prospective helical acquisition with diastolic phase acquisition only for slow HRs), then a retrospective protocol may need to be employed for patients with faster HRs. Retrospectively gated acquisitions can be used but should be only employed where no prospectively triggering alternative exists. Iterative reconstruction algorithms should be used where deemed appropriate to allow reduced radiation dose.57–59 For larger detector array or high-pitch dual-source systems, ECG synchronization may not be necessary for motion-free imaging of the aorta. A summary of all the protocols can be seen in Table 1. Further discussions are as follows.
Table 1.
Summary of scanning parameters for different types of CT scanners
Single source | |
64- and 80-detector row scanners (including “128- and 160-slice” systems) | |
HR < 65 | Prospective gating with end-diastolic acquisition |
HR > 65 | Prospective gating with end-systolic acquisition |
Exception | Where phase selection is not adjustable (e.g. on a scanner with prospective helical acquisition with diastolic phase acquisition only for slow HRs) There may be a role for retrospective gating (e.g. when the HR is >100 beats per minute) When retrospective acquisition is used, dose modulation outside the 30–80% cardiac cycle should be applied For scanners that have a retrospective mode with adaptive dose modulation, this may be used as an alternative for fast HRs |
128-, 256- or 320-detector row scanners (including “256- and 640-slice” systems) | |
128–256 detector rows | |
HR < 75 | Prospective gating with end-diastolic acquisition |
HR > 75 | Prospective gating with end-systolic acquisition |
320 detector rows | |
HR independent | Non-gated helical acquisition with the middle 8-cm coverage (160 × 0.5 mm) can be used to image the thoracic aorta in 1–2 heartbeats with motion-free imaging of the aorta |
Exception | If dedicated coronary assessment is required (e.g. in the context of known AAS or a high pre-test probability), then use following |
HR < 65 | Prospectively triggered ECG synchronization with 70–80% single pulse per volume |
HR > 65 | Prospectively triggered ECG synchronization with 30–80% single pulse per volume |
Dual source | |
HR-dependent | HR-dependent prospectively ECG-synchronization protocols can be applied similar to the systems above |
HR < 65 | Prospective gating with end-diastolic acquisition |
HR > 65 | Prospective gating with end-systolic acquisition |
In a system that allows for high-pitch acquisition in conjunction with wide detector arrays, traditional ECG synchronization may not be required e.g. a pitch of >3 and gantry rotation time 0.28 s permit coverage of 9.6–11.6 cm s−1 |
AAS, acute aortic syndrome; ECG, electrocardiogram; HR, heart rate.
Single-source systems: standard detector coverage—64- and 80-detector row scanners (including “128- and 160-slice” systems)
Although, step artefact may be problematic in coronary imaging, this does not affect diagnostic confidence in the visualization of the aorta. The advantage of adopting prospective triggering is a significant reduction in radiation dose compared with non-gated and retrospectively gated acquisitions. There may be a role for retrospective gating when the HR is fast (i.e. >100 bpm) or in systems where the threshold for prospective triggering under a pre-defined HR cannot be overridden (Table 1). When retrospective acquisition is used, dose modulation outside the 30–80% cardiac cycle should be applied.38,60
Prospective triggering is recommended with phase selection taking into account the patient's HR.55,61,62
Regular HR <65 bpm: prospective with end-diastolic triggering.
HR >65 bpm or irregular HR: prospective with end-systolic triggering.
For scanners that cannot utilize prospective triggering in a “step-and-shoot” manner at HR >65 bpm, the following protocol should is recommended.
Regular HR <65 bpm: prospective with end-diastolic triggering.
HR >65 bpm or irregular heart rate: retrospective gating with dose modulation.
For scanners that have a retrospective mode with adaptive dose modulation, this may be used as an alternative for fast HRs. This mode can be used to automatically tighten the dose modulation during retrospective acquisition. However, it is worth noting that the use of this mode should be performed with caution in irregular/variable HRs, where scanner may widen the modulation window and dose may increase significantly.
In addition, dose modulation outside the acquisition window should be set at the lowest possible value if adjustable (this is vendor-specific but ranges from 4% to 20%), therefore lowering overall dose further in retrospective acquisition.
For scanner types that only use prospective helical scanning during diastolic phase at HR <65 bpm, retrospective gating should be used above this threshold. In this setting, the following protocol is recommended.
Regular HR <65 bpm: prospective helical scanning with end-diastolic triggering.
HR >65 bpm or irregular HR: retrospective gating with dose modulation.
Where a variable helical pitch function is available, this allows seamless switching to non-gated scanning with increased pitch outside the coverage for the heart. For example, for thorax only, one would scan variable helical pitch caudocranially. ECG synchronization only used within the heart, followed by ungated acquisition for the rest of the thorax to the apices. If extended coverage of whole aorta is required, scan can be performed craniocaudally, using ECG synchronization in the thoracic portion, and then changing pitch and switching to ungated acquisition for the remaining abdominal and pelvic coverage.
Single-source systems: broad detector coverage—128-, 256- or 320-detector-row scanners (including “256- and 640-slice” systems)
For large detectors systems with increased z-axis coverage, the scanning time can be reduced. 128-detector-row scanners usually have a detector width of 8 cm. Imaging the entire thoracic aorta therefore requires more than one transverse section (and often 3–4 sections). It is recommended that a prospectively triggered approach is used, as with the 64-slice scanners. Recommendations are as follows:
Regular HR <75 bpm: prospective with end-diastolic triggering.
HR >75 bpm or irregular HR: prospective with end-systolic triggering.
Where the ability to switch from gated to non-gated scan acquisition is available, this should also be utilized to minimize dose.
320-detector systems have a detector width of 16 cm; this coverage may be adequate to image the thoracic aorta in 1–2 rotations, and with this rapid acquisition, ECG synchronization may not be required. Non-gated helical acquisition with the middle 8-cm coverage (160 × 0.5 mm) can be used to image the thoracic aorta in 1–2 heartbeats with motion-free imaging of the aorta.
However, if dedicated coronary assessment is also required (e.g. in the context of known AAS or a high pre-test probability), then prospectively triggered ECG synchronization (HR <65 bpm 70–80% single pulse per volume, HR >65 bpm 30–80% single pulse per volume) covering the entire thoracic aorta should be performed. This will require 2 volumes of 16 cm (320 × 0.5 mm) for adequate coverage. Several investigators have reported similar protocols previously.63,64
Dual-source systems
Dual-source systems have improved temporal resolution and thus allow higher tolerance for accelerated HRs. If temporal resolution <100 ms can be achieved, HR-dependent prospectively ECG-synchronization protocols can be applied. For example, if the HR is <65 bpm, the optimum phase is at end diastole. For HRs >65 bpm, the optimum phase is at end systole.65,66
In a system that allows for high-pitch acquisition in conjunction with wide detector arrays, traditional ECG synchronization may not be required.67–71 For example, using a pitch of >3 and gantry rotation time 0.28 s permits coverage of 9.6–11.6 cm s−1 with reduced radiation dose.68,70,72
CONCLUSION
This document outlines the different methods of scan acquisition with an emphasis on the importance of performing motion-free imaging of the aorta in suspected AAS in order to provide accurate diagnosis. This is by no mean an exhaustive coverage of the multiple scanners available but should encompass most scanners being used routinely in UK practices. It serves to outline the basic principle of motion-free aortic imaging using the currently available evidence and expert opinions of the BSCI/BSCCT. With continuing rapid advancement of CT technologies and the need to standardize image acquisition coupled with an obligation for dose optimization, these recommendations should allow centres to adopt protocols specific to their scanners for timely and accurate assessment using the basic principles outlined in this document. Acquisition is only one aspect of the scan and to properly implement this imaging strategy, centres must also adopt appropriate reporting facilities (e.g. picture archiving and communication system must be able to manage ECG-gating data sets, including handling of multiphasic reconstruction of retrospective acquisition), radiographer's training, as well as reporting expertise. In terms of implementation, it has been shown that application of ECG gating by adequately trained staff has no impact on the workflow of the CT examination in acute setting.73
We envisage that definitive diagnosis of ascending aortic pathology, eliminating false-positive scans, should become routine practice and that no patient should undergo sternotomy/thoracotomy or other intervention without an optimal AAS CT scan.
Contributor Information
Varut Vardhanabhuti, Email: vvar@icloud.com.
Edward Nicol, Email: cyprusdoc@doctors.org.uk.
Gareth Morgan-Hughes, Email: gareth.morgan-hughes@nhs.net.
Carl A Roobottom, Email: carl.roobottom@nhs.net.
Giles Roditi, Email: gilesroditi@mac.com.
Mark C K Hamilton, Email: mark.hamilton@uhbristol.nhs.uk.
Russell K Bull, Email: Russell.Bull@rbch.nhs.uk.
Franchesca Pugliese, Email: francesca.pugliese@libero.it.
Michelle C Williams, Email: michelle.williams@ed.ac.uk.
James Stirrup, Email: jimstirrup@hotmail.com.
Simon Padley, Email: s.padley@imperial.ac.uk.
Andrew Taylor, Email: a.taylor76@ucl.ac.uk.
L Ceri Davies, Email: ceri.davies@bartshealth.nhs.uk.
Roger Bury, Email: rogerwbury@btinternet.com.
Stephen Harden, Email: stephen.harden@uhs.nhs.uk.
REFERENCES
- 1.Olsson C, Thelin S, Ståhle E, Ekbom A, Granath F. Thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection: increasing prevalence and improved outcomes reported in a nationwide population-based study of more than 14,000 cases from 1987 to 2002. Circulation 2006; 114: 2611–8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.630400 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ueda T, Chin A, Petrovitch I, Fleischmann D. A pictorial review of acute aortic syndrome: discriminating and overlapping features as revealed by ECG-gated multidetector-row CT angiography. Insights Imaging 2012; 3: 561–71. doi: 10.1007/s13244-012-0195-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Maddu KK, Shuaib W, Telleria J, Johnson JO, Khosa F. Nontraumatic acute aortic emergencies: Part 1, Acute aortic syndrome. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: 656–65. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.11437 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Vilacosta I, Román JA. Acute aortic syndrome. Heart 2001; 85: 365–8. doi: 10.1136/heart.85.4.365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Evangelista A, Carro A, Moral S, Teixido-Tura G, Rodríguez-Palomares JF, Cuéllar H, et al. Imaging modalities for the early diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome. Nat Rev Cardiol 2013; 10: 477–86. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2013.92 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Choong AM, Das S, Mulrenan N, Hamady M, Bose P. Don't get in a flap!: a case report of progression through the spectrum of an acute aortic syndrome. Vascular 2014; 22: 454–7. doi: 10.1177/1708538113518203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Sheikh AS, Ali K, Mazhar S. Acute aortic syndrome. Circulation 2013; 128: 1122–7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000170 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Chiu KW, Lakshminarayan R, Ettles DF. Acute aortic syndrome: CT findings. Clin Radiol 2013; 68: 741–8. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2013.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Das I, Hoey ET, Ganeshan A. Re: Acute aortic syndrome: CT findings. Clin Radiol 2013; 68: e639. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2013.06.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Lempel JK, Frazier AA, Jeudy J, Kligerman SJ, Schultz R, Ninalowo HA, et al. Aortic arch dissection: a controversy of classification. Radiology 2014; 271: 848–55. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14131457 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Karras R, Ricci M, Salerno TA, Gologorsky E. Motion artifact resulting in a false positive CT angiogram for a presumed aortic dissection. J Card Surg 2011; 26: 223–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8191.2011.01200.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Shanmugam G, McKeown J, Bayfield M, Hendel N, Hughes C. False positive computed tomography findings in aortic dissection. Heart Lung Circ 2004; 13: 184–7. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2004.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Raymond CE, Aggarwal B, Schoenhagen P, Kralovic DM, Kormos K, Holloway D, et al. Prevalence and factors associated with false positive suspicion of acute aortic syndrome: experience in a patient population transferred to a specialized aortic treatment center. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 2013; 3: 196–204. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2223-3652.2013.12.06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Batra P, Bigoni B, Manning J, Aberle DR, Brown K, Hart E, et al. Pitfalls in the diagnosis of thoracic aortic dissection at CT angiography. Radiographics 2000; 20: 309–20. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.20.2.g00mc04309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Aggarwal B, Raymond C, Jacob J, Kralovic D, Kormos K, Holloway D, et al. Transfer of patients with suspected acute aortic syndrome. Am J Cardiol 2013; 112: 430–5. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.03.049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Aggarwal B, Raymond CE, Randhawa MS, Roselli E, Jacob J, Eagleton M, et al. Transfer metrics in patients with suspected acute aortic syndrome. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2014; 7: 780–2. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.000988 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Hiratzka LF, Bakris GL, Beckman JA, Bersin RM, Carr VF, Casey DE, Jr, et al. ; American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; American Association for Thoracic Surgery; American College of Radiology; American Stroke Association; Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Interventional Radiology; Society of Thoracic Surgeons; Society for Vascular Medicine. 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with Thoracic Aortic Disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society for Vascular Medicine. Circulation 2010; 121: e266–369. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181d4739e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Albornoz G, Coady MA, Roberts M, Davies RR, Tranquilli M, Rizzo JA, et al. Familial thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections–incidence, modes of inheritance, and phenotypic patterns. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 82: 1400–5. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.04.098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ascione R, Gomes WJ, Bates M, Shannon JL, Pope FM, Angelini GD. Emergency repair of type A aortic dissection in type IV Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Cardiovasc Surg 2000; 8: 75–8. doi: 10.1016/S0967-2109(99)00070-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Germain DP. Clinical and genetic features of vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Ann Vasc Surg 2002; 16: 391–7. doi: 10.1007/s10016-001-0229-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Marin A, Weir-McCall JR, Webb DJ, van Beek EJ, Mirsadraee S. Imaging of cardiovascular risk in patients with Turner's syndrome. Clin Radiol 2015; 70: 803–14. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.03.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Milewicz DM, Dietz HC, Miller DC. Treatment of aortic disease in patients with Marfan syndrome. Circulation 2005; 111: e150–7. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000155243.70456.F4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Turtle EJ, Sule AA, Webb DJ, Bath LE. Aortic dissection in children and adolescents with Turner syndrome: risk factors and management recommendations. Arch Dis Child 2015; 100: 662–6. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2014-307080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Chirillo F, Cavallini C, Longhini C, Ius P, Totis O, Cavarzerani A, et al. Comparative diagnostic value of transesophageal echocardiography and retrograde aortography in the evaluation of thoracic aortic dissection. Am J Cardiol 1994; 74: 590–5. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(94)90749-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Keren A, Kim CB, Hu BS, Eyngorina I, Billingham ME, Mitchell RS, et al. Accuracy of biplane and multiplane transesophageal echocardiography in diagnosis of typical acute aortic dissection and intramural hematoma. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996; 28: 627–36. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(96)00186-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Evangelista A, Garcia-del-Castillo H, Gonzalez-Alujas T, Dominguez-Oronoz R, Salas A, Permanyer-Miralda G, et al. Diagnosis of ascending aortic dissection by transesophageal echocardiography: utility of M-mode in recognizing artifacts. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996; 27: 102–7. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(95)00414-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Hagan PG, Nienaber CA, Isselbacher EM, Bruckman D, Karavite DJ, Russman PL, et al. The International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD): new insights into an old disease. JAMA 2000; 283: 897–903. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.7.897 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Evangelista A, Padilla F, López-Ayerbe J, Calvo F, López-Pérez JM, Sánchez V, et al. Spanish acute aortic syndrome study (RESA). Better diagnosis is not reflected in reduced mortality. Revista Espe Cardiol 2009; 62: 255–62. doi: 10.1016/S0300-8932(09)70368-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Sommer T, Fehske W, Holzknecht N, Smekal AV, Keller E, Lutterbey G, et al. Aortic dissection: a comparative study of diagnosis with spiral CT, multiplanar transesophageal echocardiography, and MR imaging. Radiology 1996; 199: 347–52. doi: 10.1148/radiology.199.2.8668776 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Nienaber CA, Spielmann RP, von Kodolitsch Y, Siglow V, Piepho A, Jaup T, et al. Diagnosis of thoracic aortic dissection. Magnetic resonance imaging versus transesophageal echocardiography. Circulation 1992; 85: 434–47. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.85.2.434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Clough RE, Nienaber CA. Management of acute aortic syndrome. Nat Rev Cardiol 2015; 12: 103–14. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2014.203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Song JK. Update in acute aortic syndrome: intramural hematoma and incomplete dissection as new disease entities. J Cardiol 2014; 64: 153–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2014.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Harris KM, Braverman AC, Gutierrez FR, Barzilai B, Dávila-Román VG. Transesophageal echocardiographic and clinical features of aortic intramural hematoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997; 114: 619–26. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5223(97)70052-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Song JM, Kang DH, Song JK, Kim HS, Lee CW, Hong MK, et al. Clinical significance of echo-free space detected by transesophageal echocardiography in patients with type B aortic intramural hematoma. Am J Cardiol 2002; 89: 548–51. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9149(01)02294-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Hartnell GG. Imaging of aortic aneurysms and dissection: CT and MRI. J Thoracic Imaging 2001; 16: 35–46. doi: 10.1097/00005382-200101000-00006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Manghat NE, Morgan-Hughes GJ, Roobottom CA. Multi-detector row computed tomography: imaging in acute aortic syndrome. Clin Radiol 2005; 60: 1256–67. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2005.06.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Roos JE, Willmann JK, Weishaupt D, Lachat M, Marincek B, Hilfiker PR. Thoracic aorta: motion artifact reduction with retrospective and prospective electrocardiography-assisted multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2002; 222: 271–7. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2221010481 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Wu W, Budovec J, Foley WD. Prospective and retrospective ECG gating for thoracic CT angiography: a comparative study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: 955–63. doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.2158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Harris KM, Braverman AC, Eagle KA, Woznicki EM, Pyeritz RE, Myrmel T, et al. Acute aortic intramural hematoma: an analysis from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection. Circulation 2012; 126 (11 Suppl. 1): S91–6. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.084541 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Souza D, Ledbetter S. Diagnostic errors in the evaluation of nontraumatic aortic emergencies. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2012; 33: 318–36. doi: 10.1053/j.sult.2012.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Kurabayashi M, Okishige K, Ueshima D, Yoshimura K, Shimura T, Suzuki H, et al. Diagnostic utility of unenhanced computed tomography for acute aortic syndrome. Circ J 2014; 78: 1928–34. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-14-0198 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Hayter RG, Rhea JT, Small A, Tafazoli FS, Novelline RA. Suspected aortic dissection and other aortic disorders: multi-detector row CT in 373 cases in the emergency setting. Radiology 2006; 238: 841–52. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2383041528 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Lovy AJ, Bellin E, Levsky JM, Esses D, Haramati LB. Preliminary development of a clinical decision rule for acute aortic syndromes. Am J Emerg Med 2013; 31: 1546–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.06.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Rodrigues JC, Mathias H, Negus IS, Manghat NE, Hamilton MC. Intravenous contrast medium administration at 128 multidetector row CT pulmonary angiography: bolus tracking versus test bolus and the implications for diagnostic quality and effective dose. Clin Radiol 2012; 67: 1053–60. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2012.02.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Rodrigues JC, Joshi D, Lyen SM, Negus IS, Manghat NE, Hamilton MC. Tube potential can be lowered to 80 kVp in test bolus phase of CT coronary angiography (CTCA) and CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) to save dose without compromising diagnostic quality. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 2458–66. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3281-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Weininger M, Barraza JM, Kemper CA, Kalafut JF, Costello P, Schoepf UJ. Cardiothoracic CT angiography: current contrast medium delivery strategies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: W260–72. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5814 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Kim DJ, Kim TH, Kim SJ, Kim DP, Oh CS, Ryu YH, et al. Saline flush effect for enhancement of aorta and coronary arteries at multidetector CT coronary angiography. Radiology 2008; 246: 110–5. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2453061953 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Beeres M, Loch M, Schulz B, Kerl M, Al-Butmeh F, Bodelle B, et al. Bolus timing in high-pitch CT angiography of the aorta. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82: 1028–33. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Seifarth H, Puesken M, Kalafut JF, Wienbeck S, Wessling J, Maintz D, et al. Introduction of an individually optimized protocol for the injection of contrast medium for coronary CT angiography. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 2373–82. doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1421-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Behrendt FF, Bruners P, Keil S, Plumhans C, Mahnken AH, Das M, et al. Effect of different saline chaser volumes and flow rates on intravascular contrast enhancement in CT using a circulation phantom. Eur J Radiol 2010; 73: 688–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.01.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Bae KT, Tran HQ, Heiken JP. Uniform vascular contrast enhancement and reduced contrast medium volume achieved by using exponentially decelerated contrast material injection method. Radiology 2004; 231: 732–6. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2313030497 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Qanadli SD, El Hajjam M, Mesurolle B, Lavisse L, Jourdan O, Randoux B, et al. Motion artifacts of the aorta simulating aortic dissection on spiral CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999; 23: 1–6. doi: 10.1097/00004728-199901000-00001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Hamilton MC, Nightingale AK, Masey S, Stuart AG, Angelini G, Hopkins R, et al. A case report of a normal aorta misdiagnosed as type A dissection by modern multidetector computed tomography. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 1856–8. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1748-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Ko SF, Hsieh MJ, Chen MC, Ng SH, Fang FM, Huang CC, et al. Effects of heart rate on motion artifacts of the aorta on non-ECG-assisted 0.5-sec thoracic MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 1225–30. doi: 10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Morgan-Hughes GJ, Owens PE, Marshall AJ, Roobottom CA. Thoracic aorta at multi-detector row CT: motion artifact with various reconstruction windows. Radiology 2003; 228: 583–8. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2282020873 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Hofmann LK, Zou KH, Costello P, Schoepf UJ. Electrocardiographically gated 16-section CT of the thorax: cardiac motion suppression. Radiology 2004; 233: 927–33. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2333030826 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Caywood D, Paxton B, Boll D, Nelson R, Kim C, Lowry C, et al. Effects of model-based iterative reconstruction on image quality for low-dose computed tomographic angiography of the thoracic aorta in a swine model. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2015; 39: 196–201. doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Shen Y, Sun Z, Xu L, Li Y, Zhang N, Yan Z, et al. High-pitch, low-voltage and low-iodine-concentration CT angiography of aorta: assessment of image quality and radiation dose with iterative reconstruction. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0117469. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117469 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Cornfeld D, Israel G, Detroy E, Bokhari J, Mojibian H. Impact of Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction (ASIR) on radiation dose and image quality in aortic dissection studies: a qualitative and quantitative analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: W336–40. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.4573 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Jakobs TF, Becker CR, Ohnesorge B, Flohr T, Suess C, Schoepf UJ, et al. Multislice helical CT of the heart with retrospective ECG gating: reduction of radiation exposure by ECG-controlled tube current modulation. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 1081–6. doi: 10.1007/s00330-001-1278-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Bischoff B, Hein F, Meyer T, Krebs M, Hadamitzky M, Martinoff S, et al. Comparison of sequential and helical scanning for radiation dose and image quality: results of the prospective multicenter study on radiation dose estimates of cardiac CT angiography (PROTECTION) I study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 1495–9. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.3543 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Blanke P, Baumann T, Bulla S, Schaefer O, Kotter E, Langer M, et al. Prospective ECG-triggered CT angiography of the thoracic aorta in patients with atrial fibrillation or accelerated heart rates: feasibility and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: W111–4. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.3153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Hein PA, Romano VC, Lembcke A, May J, Rogalla P. Initial experience with a chest pain protocol using 320-slice volume MDCT. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 1148–55. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-1255-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Li Y, Fan Z, Xu L, Yang L, Xin H, Zhang N, et al. Prospective ECG-gated 320-row CT angiography of the whole aorta and coronary arteries. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 2432–40. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2497-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Adler G, Meille L, Rohnean A, Sigal-Cinqualbre A, Capderou A, Paul JF. Robustness of end-systolic reconstructions in coronary dual-source CT angiography for high heart rate patients. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 1118–23. doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1642-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Seifarth H, Wienbeck S, Püsken M, Juergens KU, Maintz D, Vahlhaus C, et al. Optimal systolic and diastolic reconstruction windows for coronary CT angiography using dual-source CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 1317–23. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2711 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Alkadhi H, Stolzmann P, Desbiolles L, Baumueller S, Goetti R, Plass A, et al. Low-dose, 128-slice, dual-source CT coronary angiography: accuracy and radiation dose of the high-pitch and the step-and-shoot mode. Heart 2010; 96: 933–8. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2009.189100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Beeres M, Schell B, Mastragelopoulos A, Herrmann E, Kerl JM, Gruber-Rouh T, et al. High-pitch dual-source CT angiography of the whole aorta without ECG synchronisation: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 129–37. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2257-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Blanke P, Bulla S, Baumann T, Siepe M, Winterer JT, Euringer W, et al. Thoracic aorta: prospective electrocardiographically triggered CT angiography with dual-source CT—feasibility, image quality, and dose reduction. Radiology 2010; 255: 207–17. doi: 10.1148/radiol.09090860 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Karlo C, Leschka S, Goetti RP, Feuchtner G, Desbiolles L, Stolzmann P, et al. High-pitch dual-source CT angiography of the aortic valve-aortic root complex without ECG-synchronization. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 205–12. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1907-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Wuest W, Anders K, Schuhbaeck A, May MS, Gauss S, Marwan M, et al. Dual source multidetector CT-angiography before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using a high-pitch spiral acquisition mode. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 51–8. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2233-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Flohr TG, Leng S, Yu L, Aiimendinger T, Bruder H, Petersilka M, et al. Dual-source spiral CT with pitch up to 3.2 and 75 ms temporal resolution: image reconstruction and assessment of image quality. Med Phys 2009; 36: 5641–53. doi: 10.1118/1.3259739 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Schertler T, Glücker T, Wildermuth S, Jungius KP, Marincek B, Boehm T. Comparison of retrospectively ECG-gated and nongated MDCT of the chest in an emergency setting regarding workflow, image quality, and diagnostic certainty. Emerg Radiol 2005; 12: 19–29. doi: 10.1007/s10140-005-0435-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]