Prachi P Agarwal1, Peter S Liu2, Peter Hagan3, Anna M Booher4, Kuanwong Watcharotone5, Leslie E Quint2. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 48109. Electronic address: prachia@med.umich.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 48109. 3. Department of Internal Medicine (Section of Cardiology), University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 48109. 4. Traverse Heart and Vascular, 1200 Sixth St., Ste. 200, Traverse City, MI. 5. Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 400, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2800.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare proximal aortic measurements from electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography (CT) to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and to evaluate differences in cusp-cusp and cusp-commissure CT measurements of sinus of Valsalva (SOV). METHODS: This retrospective study (n=25) compared aortic diameters from CT using manual double-oblique multiplanar reformats (MPRs) and semiautomatic centerline method to TEE. RESULTS: CT MPR and centerline measurements were higher than TEE for sinotubular junction and ascending aorta. At SOV, cusp-cusp diameters (MPR and centerline methods) and cusp-commissure measurement (centerline method) were larger than TEE. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic measurements were larger on CT than TEE. Precise difference depended on location and measurement technique.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare proximal aortic measurements from electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography (CT) to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and to evaluate differences in cusp-cusp and cusp-commissure CT measurements of sinus of Valsalva (SOV). METHODS: This retrospective study (n=25) compared aortic diameters from CT using manual double-oblique multiplanar reformats (MPRs) and semiautomatic centerline method to TEE. RESULTS: CT MPR and centerline measurements were higher than TEE for sinotubular junction and ascending aorta. At SOV, cusp-cusp diameters (MPR and centerline methods) and cusp-commissure measurement (centerline method) were larger than TEE. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic measurements were larger on CT than TEE. Precise difference depended on location and measurement technique.
Authors: Laura A Freeman; Phillip M Young; Thomas A Foley; Eric E Williamson; Charles J Bruce; Kevin L Greason Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sameer Ahmed; Stefan L Zimmerman; Pamela T Johnson; Hong Lai; Satomi Kawamoto; Karen M Horton; Elliot K Fishman Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2014-01-11
Authors: Roberto M Lang; Luigi P Badano; Victor Mor-Avi; Jonathan Afilalo; Anderson Armstrong; Laura Ernande; Frank A Flachskampf; Elyse Foster; Steven A Goldstein; Tatiana Kuznetsova; Patrizio Lancellotti; Denisa Muraru; Michael H Picard; Ernst R Rietzschel; Lawrence Rudski; Kirk T Spencer; Wendy Tsang; Jens-Uwe Voigt Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: M Müller-Eschner; F Rengier; S Partovi; T F Weber; A Kopp-Schneider; P Geisbüsch; H-U Kauczor; H von Tengg-Kobligk Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: F Rengier; T F Weber; S Partovi; M Müller-Eschner; D Böckler; H-U Kauczor; H von Tengg-Kobligk Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2011-05-13 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Leslie E Quint; Peter S Liu; Anna M Booher; Kuanwong Watcharotone; James D Myles Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Alfred Hager; Harald Kaemmerer; Ulrike Rapp-Bernhardt; Sebastian Blücher; Karl Rapp; Thomas M Bernhardt; Michael Galanski; John Hess Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Katarzyna Mizia-Stec; Piotr Pysz; Marek Jasiński; Tomasz Adamczyk; Agnieszka Drzewiecka-Gerber; Artur Chmiel; Michał Krejca; Andrzej Bochenek; Stanisław Woś; Maciej Sosnowski; Zbigniew Gąsior; Maria Trusz-Gluza; Michał Tendera Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-01-30 Impact factor: 2.357