Correlation between Aortic Wall Thickness and Coronary Artery Disease by 64 Slice Multidetector Computed Tomography

Aortic Thickness: A Forgotten Paradigm in Risk Stratification of Aortic Disease

BACKGROUND

 This study aimed at risk-stratifying aortic dilatation using aortic wall thickness (AWT) and comparing methods of AWT assessment.

METHODS

 Demographic, epidemiological, and perioperative data on 72 consecutive aortic surgeries (age = 62 years[standard deviation (SD) = 12] years) performed by a single surgeon were collected from hospital database. Aortic thickness was measured on computed tomography scans, as well as intraoperatively in four quadrants, at the level of aortic sinuses, as well as midascending aorta, using calipers. Aortic wall stress was calculated using standard mathematical formulae.

RESULTS

 The ascending aorta was 48.2 (SD = 8) mm and the mean thickness at ascending aorta level was 1.9 (SD = 0.3) mm. There was congruence between imaging and intraoperative measurements of thickness, as well as between the radiologist and surgeon. Preoperatively, 16 patients had multiple imaging studies showing an average rate of growth of 1.2 mm per year without significant difference in thickness. The wider the aorta, the thinner was the lateral or convex wall. Aortic stenosis (p = 0.01), lateral to medial wall thickness ratio (p = 0.04), and history of hypertension (p = 0.00), all had protective effect on aortic root stress. The ascending aortic stress was directly affected by age (p = 0.03) and inversely related to lateral to medial wall thickness ratio (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

 Aortic thickness can be measured preoperatively and easily confirmed intraoperatively. Risk stratification based on both aortic thickness and diameter (stress calculations) would better predict acute aortic events in dilated aortas and define aortic resection criteria more objectively.

Quantifying [¹⁸F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in the arterial wall: the effects of dual time-point imaging and partial volume effect correction

PURPOSE

The human arterial wall is smaller than the spatial resolution of current positron emission tomographs. Therefore, partial volume effects should be considered when quantifying arterial wall (18)F-FDG uptake. We evaluated the impact of a novel method for partial volume effect (PVE) correction with contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) assistance on quantification of arterial wall (18)F-FDG uptake at different imaging time-points.

METHODS

Ten subjects were assessed by CECT imaging and dual time-point PET/CT imaging at approximately 60 and 180 min after (18)F-FDG administration. For both time-points, uptake of (18)F-FDG was determined in the aortic wall by calculating the blood pool-corrected maximum standardized uptake value (cSUVMAX) and cSUVMEAN. The PVE-corrected SUVMEAN (pvcSUVMEAN) was also calculated using (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CECT images. Finally, corresponding target-to-background ratios (TBR) were calculated.

RESULTS

At 60 min, pvcSUVMEAN was on average 3.1 times greater than cSUVMAX (P < .0001) and 8.5 times greater than cSUVMEAN (P < .0001). At 180 min, pvcSUVMEAN was on average 2.6 times greater than cSUVMAX (P < .0001) and 6.6 times greater than cSUVMEAN (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that CECT-assisted PVE correction significantly influences quantification of arterial wall (18)F-FDG uptake. Therefore, partial volume effects should be considered when quantifying arterial wall (18)F-FDG uptake with PET.