急性主动脉综合征3.0T MRI与64排MSCT诊断比较

Comparison of 3.0T MRI and 64-row MSCT in diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome

目的对比3.0T MRI和64排多层螺旋CT(MSCT)在急性主动脉综合征(AAS)诊断中的应用,评价两种方法的诊断价值。方法回顾性选取2016年3月~2018年7月于我院收治的57例AAS患者,行3.0T MRI和64排多层螺旋CT(64排MSCT)扫描,以术后诊断为金标准,比较两种诊断方法对本病的诊断价值。结果经术后确诊,57例急性主动脉综合征患者中主动脉夹层(AD)23例,主动脉壁间血肿(IMH)11例,主动脉穿透性溃疡(PAU)9例,创伤性主动脉离断7例,主动脉瘤破裂7例。3.0T MRI和64排多层螺旋CT(MSCT)诊断结果和符合率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。3.0T MRI检查时间长于64排MSCT,检查费用高于MSCT,图像质量评分更高,信噪比更低,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论3.0T MRI和64排MSCT对AAS的诊断方面各有优缺点,准确率均较高,是AAS检测的准确快捷的检查方法,临床上可根据患者实际病情需要、经济能力结合医师判断选择适合的诊断方式。

Objective To compare the use of 3.0T MRI and 64-row multi-slice spiral CT(MSCT) in the diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome(AAS),and to evaluate the diagnostic value of the two methods.Methods A total of 57 patients with AAS admitted to our hospital from March 2016 to July 2018 were enrolled.3.0TMR and 64-row multi-slice spiral CT(64-slice MSCT) were conducted and results of postoperative diagnosis were selected as the gold standard.The diagnostic value of the two methods for this disease was compared.Results After surgery,57 patients with acute aortic syndrome had aortic dissection(AD) in 23 cases,intramural hematoma(IMH) in 11 cases,penetrating aortic ulcer(PAU) in 9 cases,traumatic aorta disconnection in 7 cases and aortic aneurysm rupture in 7 cases.There were no significant differences in the diagnostic results and coincidence rates between the 3.0T MRI and 64-row MSCT(P>0.05).The examination time of 3.0T MRI was longer than that of 64-row MSCT,the examination cost was higher than that of MSCT,the image quality score was higher and the signal-to-noise ratio was lower,the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05).Conclusion 3.0T MRI and 64-row MSCT have their own advantages and disadvantages in the diagnosis of AAS.Both of them have high accuracy and are accurate and quick methods for AAS detection.Clinically,the appropriate diagnosis method can be selected according to the actual condition and the economic situation of the patients,as well as the judgment of the physician.