Abdominal aortic aneurysm MRI

Jump to: navigation, search

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Abdominal X Ray

Ultrasound

CT

MRI

Other Imaging Findings

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Prevention

Prevention of Aortic Aneurysm Rupture

Case Studies

Case #1

Abdominal aortic aneurysm MRI On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Abdominal aortic aneurysm MRI

CDC on Abdominal aortic aneurysm MRI

Abdominal aortic aneurysm MRI in the news

Blogs on Abdominal aortic aneurysm MRI</small>

Directions to Hospitals Treating Abdominal aortic aneurysm MRI

Risk calculators and risk factors for Abdominal aortic aneurysm MRI

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor-In-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2]; Hardik Patel, M.D.

Overview

MRI might be a better soft tissue visualizer than ultrasonography and CT, but its limitations limit its usage as a screening tool and as a diagnostic tool during emergencies like ruptured AAA. However its advantages makes it a good alternative in AAA patients with poor renal function and in elective preoperative evaluation of unruptured AAA[1].

MRI

Advantages

  • MRI may be helpful in stable patients with a severe dye allergy, where CT scanning is contraindicated.
  • MRI provides imaging of the aorta comparable to that with CT scanning and ultrasonogram without subjecting the patient to dye load or ionizing radiation.
  • MRI also provides superior imaging of branch vessels compared with CT scan or ultrasonogram[2].
  • MRI is a more precise preoperative evaluator and affords immediate post operative evaluation of surgical repair of AAA[3].

Limitations

  • Lack of widespread availability
  • Need for a stable patient
  • More sensitive to motion than CT, thus requiring the patient to remain motionless for a longer period of time
  • Incompatible with monitoring equipment
  • High cost
  • Less valuable in assessing suprarenal extension of aneurysm
  • Less accurate than thin-slice CT[2]

References

  1. Thurnher, SA.; Dorffner, R.; Thurnher, MM.; Winkelbauer, FW.; Kretschmer, G.; Polterauer, P.; Lammer, J. (1997). "Evaluation of abdominal aortic aneurysm for stent-graft placement: comparison of gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography versus helical CT angiography and digital subtraction angiography.". Radiology. 205 (2): 341–52. PMID 9356613.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. 2.0 2.1 Litmanovich, D.; Bankier, AA.; Cantin, L.; Raptopoulos, V.; Boiselle, PM. (2009). "CT and MRI in diseases of the aorta.". AJR Am J Roentgenol. 193 (4): 928–40. PMID 19770313. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.2166.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. Cejna, M.; Loewe, C.; Schoder, M.; Dirisamer, A.; Hölzenbein, T.; Kretschmer, G.; Lammer, J.; Thurnher, S. (2002). "MR angiography vs CT angiography in the follow-up of nitinol stent grafts in endoluminally treated aortic aneurysms.". Eur Radiol. 12 (10): 2443–50. PMID 12271383. doi:10.1007/s00330-002-1429-8.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)


Cardiology


Linked-in.jpg