AJR 2004; 182:777-784.
Lee EY, Siegel MJ, Hildebolt CF, Gutierrez FR, Bhalla S, Fallah JH.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare accuracies of axial, multiplanar, and 3D volume-rendered images in the diagnosis of thoracic aortic anomalies in pediatric patients and young adults.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients, 17 days to 20 years old, with thoracic aortic anomalies underwent MDCT using axial, multiplanar, and 3D volume-rendering imaging. All images were reviewed by three radiologists for position of the aortic arch, coarc-tation, vascular compression of the airway, collateral vessel formation, and aortopulmonary shunts (patent ductus arteriosus). Final diagnosis was determined by echocardiography, conventional angiography, bronchoscopy, or surgery. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and inter-observer agreement were evaluated.
RESULTS: Average accuracies (average of the three observers for a correct diagnosis) were greater than or equal to 96% for diagnoses of aortic position and airway narrowing on all image types. For the diagnosis of coarctation, average sensitivities (average of the three observers for a true diagnosis) were 73% for axial, 100% for multiplanar, and 100% for 3D volume-rendered images. For the diagnosis of patent ductus arteriosus, average sensitivities were 78% for axial, 94% for multiplanar, and 89% for 3D volume-rendered images. No patients in this study had collateral vessel formation. For the diagnosis of absence of collateral vessel formation, average sensitivities were 100% for axial, 100% for multiplanar, and 100% for 3D volume-rendered images. There were no significant statistical differences in diagnostic performances, agreement with truth, or confidence scores among observers or imaging formats (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Axial, multiplanar, and 3D volume-rendered images serve equally well as methods for assessing the side of the aorta to diagnose anomalies. For evaluation of coarctation and patent ductus arteriosus, multiplanar and 3D volume-rendered images perform slightly better than axial images.