Computed tomography versus aortography in diagnosis of aortic dissection

The use of computed tomography (CT) versus aortography is evaluated in a limited study of 17 cases of aortic dissection (AD). With the constraints of the present state of the technology and lack of availability of CT scanners at some centers, aortography remains the premier and often the only diagnostic test to choose in an emergency. CT, however, may be an asset in the diagnosis of AD when: (1) atypical or misleading clinical presentations are evident that do not require aortography; (2) aortography is contraindicated in a weakened patient, when there is no emergency; (3) aortography is a risk while there is a strong suggestion of AD; (4) patency of a false channel must be confirmed. These circumstances were encountered in five patients. In addition, a localized infrarenal AD was fortuitously discovered in two patients presenting with abdominal visceral cancer. On patient follow-up, CT is less invasive and may be performed in asymptomatic patients undergoing treatment, thereby facilitating the early detection of complications. Detailed computed tomograms often yield superior diagnostic information only if the CT study includes rapid sequential scans immediately following a fast intravenous bolus of contrast material.