Charles L Halasz1, David P Munger2, Heather Frimmer2, Michael Dicorato3, Sandra Wainwright4. 1. Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; Department of Medicine, Norwalk Hospital, Norwalk, Connecticut. Electronic address: clh1@cumc.columbia.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Norwalk Hospital, Norwalk, Connecticut. 3. Department of Pathology, Norwalk Hospital, Norwalk, Connecticut. 4. Department of Department of Hyperbaric Medicine and Wound Healing, Greenwich Hospital, Greenwich, Connecticut.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current gold standard for diagnosis of calciphylaxis is a skin biopsy specimen demonstrating calcification of small-caliber arteries or arterioles. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare diameters of calcified vessels seen in skin biopsy specimens and radiology images of patients with calciphylaxis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with known calciphylaxis from 2009 to 2016 at a community hospital who had both skin biopsy specimens and radiology images taken as part of their routine care. Vascular calcification was compared in skin biopsy specimens and radiology images. RESULTS: Seven patients were identified. Small-vessel calcification as fine as 0.1 to 0.3 mm was identified on plain films in 3 patients; 0.1 to 0.2 mm by mammography in 3 patients, and 0.1 to 0.2 mm by computed tomography imaging in 1 patient, nearly as fine a resolution as on histopathology. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study with limited sample size. CONCLUSION: Radiologic imaging might enable more rapid diagnosis of calciphylaxis when skin biopsy specimen is pending or not available.
BACKGROUND: The current gold standard for diagnosis of calciphylaxis is a skin biopsy specimen demonstrating calcification of small-caliber arteries or arterioles. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare diameters of calcified vessels seen in skin biopsy specimens and radiology images of patients with calciphylaxis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with known calciphylaxis from 2009 to 2016 at a community hospital who had both skin biopsy specimens and radiology images taken as part of their routine care. Vascular calcification was compared in skin biopsy specimens and radiology images. RESULTS: Seven patients were identified. Small-vessel calcification as fine as 0.1 to 0.3 mm was identified on plain films in 3 patients; 0.1 to 0.2 mm by mammography in 3 patients, and 0.1 to 0.2 mm by computed tomography imaging in 1 patient, nearly as fine a resolution as on histopathology. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study with limited sample size. CONCLUSION: Radiologic imaging might enable more rapid diagnosis of calciphylaxis when skin biopsy specimen is pending or not available.