Nancy Benedetti1, Michael D Hope. 1. From the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of incidental ascending aortic dilation and its significance over time in 55- to 80-year-olds undergoing routine computed tomographic scans. METHODS: Chest computed tomography reports for 64,092 patients who met the inclusion criteria were used to determine the prevalence of incidental ascending aortic dilation (4-5 cm) and, when possible, aortic growth rates. A chart review was performed to identify any aortic complication or intervention. RESULTS: The prevalence of incidental aortic dilation was 2.7% (671/24,992 patients). Of the 327 patients with aortic dilation and follow-up studies (mean, 3.4 years), only 3.7% (n = 12) demonstrated interval growth (mean of 0.9 mm/y). No patient underwent prophylactic surgery or intervention on the basis of aortic size or growth rate. One patient developed a type A dissection. CONCLUSIONS: Current guidelines for yearly surveillance imaging of aortic dilation could be revised to increase the follow-up interval and/or improve risk stratification to better identify the small subset of patients most likely to have disease progression.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of incidental ascending aortic dilation and its significance over time in 55- to 80-year-olds undergoing routine computed tomographic scans. METHODS: Chest computed tomography reports for 64,092 patients who met the inclusion criteria were used to determine the prevalence of incidental ascending aortic dilation (4-5 cm) and, when possible, aortic growth rates. A chart review was performed to identify any aortic complication or intervention. RESULTS: The prevalence of incidental aortic dilation was 2.7% (671/24,992 patients). Of the 327 patients with aortic dilation and follow-up studies (mean, 3.4 years), only 3.7% (n = 12) demonstrated interval growth (mean of 0.9 mm/y). No patient underwent prophylactic surgery or intervention on the basis of aortic size or growth rate. One patient developed a type A dissection. CONCLUSIONS: Current guidelines for yearly surveillance imaging of aortic dilation could be revised to increase the follow-up interval and/or improve risk stratification to better identify the small subset of patients most likely to have disease progression.
Authors: Luc Cozijnsen; Richard L Braam; Reinier A Waalewijn; Marc A A M Schepens; Bart L Loeys; Matthijs F M van Oosterhout; Daniela Q C M Barge-Schaapveld; Barbara J M Mulder Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Steven M Santilli; Fred N Littooy; Robert A Cambria; Joseph H Rapp; Alexander S Tretinyak; Alexandre C d'Audiffret; Michael A Kuskowski; Scott T Roethle; Cynthia M Tomczak; William C Krupski Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Ryan R Davies; Lee J Goldstein; Michael A Coady; Shawn L Tittle; John A Rizzo; Gary S Kopf; John A Elefteriades Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Peter C A Jacobs; Willem P Th M Mali; Diederick E Grobbee; Yolanda van der Graaf Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Nicholas S Burris; Zhangxing Bian; Jeffrey Dominic; Jianyang Zhong; Ignas B Houben; Theodorus M J van Bakel; Himanshu J Patel; Brian D Ross; Gary E Christensen; Charles R Hatt Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 11.105