Nontraumatic Aortic Disease

Variant: 1 Congenital aortic disease. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US echocardiography transthoracic resting	Usually Appropriate	O
Radiography chest	Usually Appropriate	☢
MRA chest and abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRA chest and abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CTA chest and abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen	May Be Appropriate	O
US echocardiography transesophageal	May Be Appropriate	O
Aortography chest and abdomen	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest and abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest and abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest and abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Inflammatory or infectious or neoplastic or metabolic nontraumatic aortic disease. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRA chest and abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRA chest and abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CTA chest and abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen	May Be Appropriate	O
Radiography chest	May Be Appropriate	☢
CT chest and abdomen with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest and abdomen without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest and abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US echocardiography transesophageal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US echocardiography transthoracic resting	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Aortography chest and abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Degenerative or atherosclerotic aortic disease. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US abdomen	Usually Appropriate	O
Radiography chest	Usually Appropriate	☢
MRA chest and abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRA chest and abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CTA chest and abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US echocardiography transthoracic resting	May Be Appropriate	O
CT chest and abdomen with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest and abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US echocardiography transesophageal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Aortography chest and abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest and abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Andrew J. Gunn, MD^a; Sanjeeva P. Kalva, ^b; Bill S. Majdalany, MD^c; Jason Craft, MD^d; Jens Eldrup-Jorgensen, MD^e; Maros Ferencik, MD, PhD, MCR^f; Suvranu Ganguli, MD^g; A. Tuba Karagulle Kendi, MD^h; Minhaj S. Khaja, MD, MBAⁱ; Piotr Obara, MD^j; Raymond R. Russell, MD, PhD^k; Patrick D. Sutphin, MD, PhD^l; Kanupriya Vijay, MBBS, MD^m; David Wang, ⁿ; Karin E. Dill, MD^o.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Congenital aortic disease. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Congenital aortic disease. Initial imaging.
A. Aortography chest and abdomen

Variant 1: Congenital aortic disease. Initial imaging.
B. CT Chest and Abdomen

Variant 1: Congenital aortic disease. Initial imaging.
C. CTA Chest and Abdomen with IV Contrast

Variant 1: Congenital aortic disease. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 1: Congenital aortic disease. Initial imaging.
E. MRA Chest and Abdomen

Variant 1: Congenital aortic disease. Initial imaging.
F. Radiography Chest

Variant 1: Congenital aortic disease. Initial imaging.
G. US Abdomen

Variant 1: Congenital aortic disease. Initial imaging.
H. US Echocardiography Transthoracic

Variant 1: Congenital aortic disease. Initial imaging.
I. US Echocardiography Transesophageal

Variant 2: Inflammatory or infectious or neoplastic or metabolic nontraumatic aortic disease. Initial imaging.

Variant 2: Inflammatory or infectious or neoplastic or metabolic nontraumatic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
A. Aortography chest and abdomen

Variant 2: Inflammatory or infectious or neoplastic or metabolic nontraumatic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
B. CT Chest and Abdomen

Variant 2: Inflammatory or infectious or neoplastic or metabolic nontraumatic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
C. CTA Chest and Abdomen with IV Contrast

Variant 2: Inflammatory or infectious or neoplastic or metabolic nontraumatic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 2: Inflammatory or infectious or neoplastic or metabolic nontraumatic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
E. MRA Chest and Abdomen

Variant 2: Inflammatory or infectious or neoplastic or metabolic nontraumatic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
F. Radiography Chest

Variant 2: Inflammatory or infectious or neoplastic or metabolic nontraumatic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
G. US Abdomen

Variant 2: Inflammatory or infectious or neoplastic or metabolic nontraumatic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
H. US Echocardiography Transthoracic

Variant 2: Inflammatory or infectious or neoplastic or metabolic nontraumatic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
I. US Echocardiography Transesophageal

Variant 3: Degenerative or atherosclerotic aortic disease. Initial imaging.

Variant 3: Degenerative or atherosclerotic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
A. Aortography chest and abdomen

Variant 3: Degenerative or atherosclerotic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
B. CT Chest and Abdomen

Variant 3: Degenerative or atherosclerotic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
C. CTA Chest and Abdomen with IV Contrast

Variant 3: Degenerative or atherosclerotic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 3: Degenerative or atherosclerotic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
E. MRA Chest and Abdomen

Variant 3: Degenerative or atherosclerotic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
F. Radiography Chest

Variant 3: Degenerative or atherosclerotic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
G. US Abdomen

Variant 3: Degenerative or atherosclerotic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
H. US Echocardiography Transthoracic

Variant 3: Degenerative or atherosclerotic aortic disease. Initial imaging.
I. US Echocardiography Transesophageal

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Batlle JC, Kirsch J, Bolen MA, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chest Pain-Possible Acute Coronary Syndrome. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:S55-S69.
2.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Nonischemic Myocardial Disease with Clinical Manifestations (Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Already Excluded). Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/3082580/Narrative/.
3.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Suspected Pulmonary Embolism. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69404/Narrative/.
4.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Acute Chest Pain-Suspected Aortic Dissection. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69402/Narrative/.
5.	Reis SP, Majdalany BS, AbuRahma AF, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Pulsatile Abdominal Mass Suspected Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14:S258-S65.
6.	Francois CJ, Skulborstad EP, Majdalany BS, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Interventional Planning and Follow-Up. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:S2-S12.
7.	Cooper K, Majdalany BS, Kalva SP, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Lower Extremity Arterial Revascularization-Post-Therapy Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:S104-S15.
8.	Expert Panel on Vascular Imaging:, Ahmed O, Hanley M, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Vascular Claudication-Assessment for Revascularization. [Review]. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 14(5S):S372-S379, 2017 May.
9.	American College of Radiology. ACR–NASCI–SIR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Body Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=164+&releaseId=2.
10.	Dijkema EJ, Leiner T, Grotenhuis HB. Diagnosis, imaging and clinical management of aortic coarctation. [Review]. Heart. 103(15):1148-1155, 2017 08.
11.	Becker C, Soppa C, Fink U, et al. Spiral CT angiography and 3D reconstruction in patients with aortic coarctation. Eur Radiol. 7(9):1473-7, 1997.
12.	Di Sessa TG, Di Sessa P, Gregory B, Vranicar M. The use of 3D contrast-enhanced CT reconstructions to project images of vascular rings and coarctation of the aorta. Echocardiography. 26(1):76-81, 2009 Jan.
13.	Hu XH, Huang GY, Pa M, et al. Multidetector CT angiography and 3D reconstruction in young children with coarctation of the aorta. Pediatr Cardiol. 29(4):726-31, 2008 Jul.
14.	Lee EY, Siegel MJ, Hildebolt CF, Gutierrez FR, Bhalla S, Fallah JH. MDCT evaluation of thoracic aortic anomalies in pediatric patients and young adults: comparison of axial, multiplanar, and 3D images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 182(3):777-84, 2004 Mar.
15.	Mirzaee H, Henn T, Krause MJ, et al. MRI-based computational hemodynamics in patients with aortic coarctation using the lattice Boltzmann methods: Clinical validation study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 45(1):139-146, 2017 01.
16.	Nie P, Wang X, Cheng Z, et al. The value of low-dose prospective ECG-gated dual-source CT angiography in the diagnosis of coarctation of the aorta in infants and children. Clin Radiol. 67(8):738-45, 2012 Aug.
17.	Nielsen JC, Powell AJ, Gauvreau K, Marcus EN, Prakash A, Geva T. Magnetic resonance imaging predictors of coarctation severity. Circulation. 111(5):622-8, 2005 Feb 08.
18.	Peng L, Yang Z, Yu J, Chu Z, Chen D, Luo Y. [Clinical value of ECG-gated dual-source computed tomography and angiography in assessing coarctation of aorta]. [Chinese]. Shengwu Yixue Gongchengxue Zazhi/Journal of Biomedical Engineering. 30(1):89-94, 2013 Feb.
19.	Budoff MJ, Shittu A, Roy S. Use of cardiovascular computed tomography in the diagnosis and management of coarctation of the aorta. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 146(1):229-32, 2013 Jul.
20.	Sun Z. Diagnostic value of color duplex ultrasonography in the follow-up of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006; 17(5):759-764.
21.	Thakkar AN, Chinnadurai P, Lin CH. Imaging adult patients with coarctation of the aorta. [Review]. Curr Opin Cardiol. 32(5):503-512, 2017 Sep.
22.	Russo V, Renzulli M, La Palombara C, Fattori R. Congenital diseases of the thoracic aorta. Role of MRI and MRA. [Review] [37 refs]. Eur Radiol. 16(3):676-84, 2006 Mar.
23.	Allen BD, van Ooij P, Barker AJ, et al. Thoracic aorta 3D hemodynamics in pediatric and young adult patients with bicuspid aortic valve. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;42:954-63.
24.	Burris NS, Hope MD. 4D flow MRI applications for aortic disease. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2015;23:15-23.
25.	Ha H, Kim GB, Kweon J, et al. Hemodynamic Measurement Using Four-Dimensional Phase-Contrast MRI: Quantification of Hemodynamic Parameters and Clinical Applications. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:445-62.
26.	Camren GP, Wilson GJ, Bamra VR, Nguyen KQ, Hippe DS, Maki JH. A comparison between gadofosveset trisodium and gadobenate dimeglumine for steady state MRA of the thoracic vasculature. BioMed Research International. 2014:625614, 2014.
27.	Francois CJ, Tuite D, Deshpande V, Jerecic R, Weale P, Carr JC. Unenhanced MR angiography of the thoracic aorta: initial clinical evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(4):902-906.
28.	Ming Z, Yumin Z, Yuhua L, Biao J, Aimin S, Qian W. Diagnosis of congenital obstructive aortic arch anomalies in Chinese children by contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2006; 8(5):747-753.
29.	Bogaert J, Kuzo R, Dymarkowski S, et al. Follow-up of patients with previous treatment for coarctation of the thoracic aorta: comparison between contrast-enhanced MR angiography and fast spin-echo MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 10(12):1847-54, 2000.
30.	Jashari H, Rydberg A, Ibrahimi P, Bajraktari G, Henein MY. Left ventricular response to pressure afterload in children: aortic stenosis and coarctation: a systematic review of the current evidence. [Review]. Int J Cardiol. 178:203-9, 2015 Jan 15.
31.	Singh S, Hakim FA, Sharma A, et al. Hypoplasia, pseudocoarctation and coarctation of the aorta - a systematic review. [Review]. Heart Lung Circ. 24(2):110-8, 2015 Feb.
32.	Jaffe RB. Complete interruption of the aortic arch. 1. Characteristic radiographic findings in 21 patients. Circulation. 1975; 52(4):714-721.
33.	Pickhardt PJ, Siegel MJ, Gutierrez FR. Vascular rings in symptomatic children: frequency of chest radiographic findings. Radiology. 1997; 203(2):423-426.
34.	Jagannath AS, Sos TA, Lockhart SH, Saddekni S, Sniderman KW. Aortic dissection: a statistical analysis of the usefulness of plain chest radiographic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986; 147(6):1123-1126.
35.	Leonard JC, Hasleton PS. Dissecting aortic aneurysms: a clinicopathological study. I. Clinical and gross pathological findings. Q J Med. 1979; 48(189):55-63.
36.	Connolly JE, Wilson SE, Lawrence PL, Fujitani RM. Middle aortic syndrome: distal thoracic and abdominal coarctation, a disorder with multiple etiologies. J Am Coll Surg. 194(6):774-81, 2002 Jun.
37.	Yan L, Li HY, Ye XJ, Xu RQ, Chen XY. Doppler ultrasonographic and clinical features of middle aortic syndrome. J Clin Ultrasound. 47(1):22-26, 2019 Jan.
38.	Tonkin IL. The definition of cardiac malpositions with echocardiography and computed tomography. In: Friedman WF, Higgins CB, eds. Pediatric cardiac imaging. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders; 1984:157-87.
39.	Evangelista A, Avegliano G, Aguilar R, et al. Impact of contrast-enhanced echocardiography on the diagnostic algorithm of acute aortic dissection. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(4):472-479.
40.	Wyse RK, Robinson PJ, Deanfield JE, Tunstall Pedoe DS, Macartney FJ. Use of continuous wave Doppler ultrasound velocimetry to assess the severity of coarctation of the aorta by measurement of aortic flow velocities. Br Heart J. 52(3):278-83, 1984 Sep.
41.	Karaosmanoglu AD, Khawaja RD, Onur MR, Kalra MK. CT and MRI of aortic coarctation: pre- and postsurgical findings. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 204(3):W224-33, 2015 Mar.
42.	Goldstein SA, Evangelista A, Abbara S, et al. Multimodality imaging of diseases of the thoracic aorta in adults: from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging: endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. [Review]. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 28(2):119-82, 2015 Feb.
43.	Houston A, Hillis S, Lilley S, Richens T, Swan L. Echocardiography in adult congenital heart disease. [Review] [87 refs]. Heart. 80 Suppl 1:S12-26, 1998 Nov.
44.	Barra L, Kanji T, Malette J, Pagnoux C, CanVasc. Imaging modalities for the diagnosis and disease activity assessment of Takayasu's arteritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Autoimmun Rev. 17(2):175-187, 2018 Feb.
45.	Lin MP, Chang SC, Wu RH, Chou CK, Tzeng WS. A comparison of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and digital subtraction angiography findings in the diagnosis of infected aortic aneurysm. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 32(4):616-20, 2008 Jul-Aug.
46.	Hagspiel KD, Hunter YR, Ahmed HK, et al. Primary sarcoma of the distal abdominal aorta: CT angiography findings. Abdom Imaging. 29(4):507-10, 2004 Jul-Aug.
47.	Winter L, Langrehr J, Hanninen EL. Primary angiosarcoma of the abdominal aorta: multi-row computed tomography. Abdom Imaging. 35(4):485-7, 2010 Aug.
48.	Macedo TA, Stanson AW, Oderich GS, Johnson CM, Panneton JM, Tie ML. Infected aortic aneurysms: imaging findings. Radiology. 231(1):250-7, 2004 Apr.
49.	Rakita D, Newatia A, Hines JJ, Siegel DN, Friedman B. Spectrum of CT findings in rupture and impending rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Radiographics. 2007; 27(2):497-507.
50.	Restrepo CS, Betancourt SL, Martinez-Jimenez S, Gutierrez FR. Aortic tumors. [Review]. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT & MR. 33(3):265-72, 2012 Jun.
51.	Yamada I, Nakagawa T, Himeno Y, Numano F, Shibuya H. Takayasu arteritis: evaluation of the thoracic aorta with CT angiography. Radiology. 209(1):103-9, 1998 Oct.
52.	Park JH, Chung JW, Lee KW, Park YB, Han MC. CT angiography of Takayasu arteritis: comparison with conventional angiography. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 8(3):393-400, 1997 May-Jun.
53.	Berthod PE, Aho-Glele S, Ornetti P, et al. CT analysis of the aorta in giant-cell arteritis: a case-control study. Eur Radiol. 28(9):3676-3684, 2018 Sep.
54.	Rajiah P, Schoenhagen P. The role of computed tomography in pre-procedural planning of cardiovascular surgery and intervention. Insights imaging. 4(5):671-89, 2013 Oct.
55.	Katabathina VS, Restrepo CS. Infectious and noninfectious aortitis: cross-sectional imaging findings. [Review]. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 33(3):207-21, 2012 Jun.
56.	de Boysson H, Dumont A, Liozon E, et al. Giant-cell arteritis: concordance study between aortic CT angiography and FDG-PET/CT in detection of large-vessel involvement. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 44(13):2274-2279, 2017 Dec.
57.	Hommada M, Mekinian A, Brillet PY, et al. Aortitis in giant cell arteritis: diagnosis with FDG PET/CT and agreement with CT angiography. Autoimmun Rev. 16(11):1131-1137, 2017 Nov.
58.	Restrepo CS, Ocazionez D, Suri R, Vargas D. Aortitis: imaging spectrum of the infectious and inflammatory conditions of the aorta. [Review]. Radiographics. 31(2):435-51, 2011 Mar-Apr.
59.	Gornik HL, Creager MA. Aortitis. [Review] [128 refs]. Circulation. 117(23):3039-51, 2008 Jun 10.
60.	Blockmans D, Stroobants S, Maes A, Mortelmans L. Positron emission tomography in giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica: evidence for inflammation of the aortic arch. Am J Med 2000;108:246-9.
61.	Morinobu A, Tsuji G, Kasagi S, et al. Role of imaging studies in the diagnosis and evaluation of giant cell arteritis in Japanese: report of eight cases. Mod Rheumatol. 21(4):391-6, 2011 Aug.
62.	Lee YH, Choi SJ, Ji JD, Song GG. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for large vessel vasculitis : A meta-analysis. [Review]. Z Rheumatol. 75(9):924-931, 2016 Nov.
63.	Walter MA.. [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET in large vessel vasculitis. [Review] [65 refs]. Radiol Clin North Am. 45(4):735-44, viii, 2007 Jul.
64.	Zhang X, Zhou J, Sun Y, Shi H, Ji Z, Jiang L. 18F-FDG-PET/CT: an accurate method to assess the activity of Takayasu's arteritis. Clin Rheumatol. 37(7):1927-1935, 2018 Jul.
65.	Cullenward MJ, Scanlan KA, Pozniak MA, Acher CA. Inflammatory aortic aneurysm (periaortic fibrosis): radiologic imaging. Radiology. 159(1):75-82, 1986 Apr.
66.	Liu M, Liu W, Li H, Shu X, Tao X, Zhai Z. Evaluation of takayasu arteritis with delayed contrast-enhanced MR imaging by a free-breathing 3D IR turbo FLASH. Medicine (Baltimore). 96(51):e9284, 2017 Dec.
67.	Atalay MK, Bluemke DA. Magnetic resonance imaging of large vessel vasculitis. [Review] [25 refs]. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 13(1):41-7, 2001 Jan.
68.	Bley TA, Wieben O, Uhl M, Thiel J, Schmidt D, Langer M. High-resolution MRI in giant cell arteritis: imaging of the wall of the superficial temporal artery. AJR. 2005; 184(1):283-287.
69.	Koenigkam-Santos M, Sharma P, Kalb B, et al. Magnetic resonance angiography in extracranial giant cell arteritis. J. clin. rheumatol.. 17(6):306-10, 2011 Sep.
70.	Siemonsen S, Brekenfeld C, Holst B, Kaufmann-Buehler AK, Fiehler J, Bley TA. 3T MRI reveals extra- and intracranial involvement in giant cell arteritis. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology. 36(1):91-7, 2015 Jan.AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 36(1):91-7, 2015 Jan.
71.	Rajiah P.. CT and MRI in the Evaluation of Thoracic Aortic Diseases. [Review]. Int J Vasc Med. 2013:797189, 2013.
72.	Mohsen NA, Haber M, Urrutia VC, Nunes LW. Intimal sarcoma of the aorta. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 175(5):1289-90, 2000 Nov.
73.	Halbach C, McClelland CM, Chen J, Li S, Lee MS. Use of Noninvasive Imaging in Giant Cell Arteritis. [Review]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology. 7(4):260-264, 2018 Jul-Aug.Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 7(4):260-264, 2018 Jul-Aug.
74.	Zachrisson H, Svensson C, Dremetsika A, Eriksson P. An extended high-frequency ultrasound protocol for detection of vessel wall inflammation. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 38(4):586-594, 2018 Jul.
75.	Schmidt WA.. Ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of giant cell arteritis. [Review]. Rheumatology (Oxford). 57(suppl_2):ii22-ii31, 2018 02 01.
76.	Kankilic N, Aslan A, Karahan O, Demirtas S, Caliskan A, Yavuz C. Investigation of the arterial intima-media thickness in Behcet's disease patients without vascular complaints. Vascular. 26(4):356-361, 2018 Aug.
77.	Litmanovich D, Bankier AA, Cantin L, Raptopoulos V, Boiselle PM. CT and MRI in diseases of the aorta. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:928-40.
78.	Liisberg M, Diederichsen AC, Lindholt JS. Abdominal ultrasound-scanning versus non-contrast computed tomography as screening method for abdominal aortic aneurysm - a validation study from the randomized DANCAVAS study. BMC med. imaging. 17(1):14, 2017 02 14.
79.	Horinaka S, Yagi H, Fukushima H, Shibata Y, Takeshima H, Ishimitsu T. Associations Between Cardio-Ankle Vascular Index and Aortic Structure and Sclerosis Using Multidetector Computed Tomography. Angiology. 68(4):330-338, 2017 Apr.
80.	Criqui MH, Aboyans V, Allison MA, et al. Peripheral Artery Disease and Aortic Disease. [Review]. Glob Heart. 11(3):313-326, 2016 09.
81.	Criqui MH, Denenberg JO, McClelland RL, et al. Abdominal aortic calcium, coronary artery calcium, and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 34(7):1574-9, 2014 07.
82.	Craiem D, Chironi G, Casciaro ME, Graf S, Simon A. Calcifications of the thoracic aorta on extended non-contrast-enhanced cardiac CT. PLoS ONE. 9(10):e109584, 2014.
83.	Bos D, Leening MJ, Kavousi M, et al. Comparison of Atherosclerotic Calcification in Major Vessel Beds on the Risk of All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality: The Rotterdam Study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 8(12), 2015 Dec.
84.	Galaska R, Kulawiak-Galaska D, Wegrzyn A, et al. Assessment of Subclinical Atherosclerosis Using Computed Tomography Calcium Scores in Patients with Familial and Nonfamilial Hypercholesterolemia. J Atheroscler Thromb. 23(5):588-95, 2016 May 02.
85.	Hiratzka LF, Bakris GL, Beckman JA, et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology,American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons,and Society for Vascular Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(14):e27-e129.
86.	Fernandez JD, Donovan S, Garrett HE, Jr., Burgar S. Endovascular thoracic aortic aneurysm repair: evaluating the utility of intravascular ultrasound measurements. J Endovasc Ther. 2008; 15(1):68-72.
87.	Hansen NJ.. Computed Tomographic Angiography of the Abdominal Aorta. [Review]. Radiol Clin North Am. 54(1):35-54, 2016 Jan.
88.	Schertler T, Frauenfelder T, Stolzmann P, et al. Triple rule-out CT in patients with suspicion of acute pulmonary embolism: findings and accuracy. Acad Radiol. 16(6):708-17, 2009 Jun.
89.	Tanahashi Y, Goshima S, Kondo H, et al. Additional value of venous phase added to aortic CT angiography in patients with aortic aneurysm. Clin Imaging. 44:51-56, 2017 Jul - Aug.
90.	Lu TL, Huber CH, Rizzo E, Dehmeshki J, von Segesser LK, Qanadli SD. Ascending aorta measurements as assessed by ECG-gated multi-detector computed tomography: a pilot study to establish normative values for transcatheter therapies. Eur Radiol. 2009; 19(3):664-669.
91.	Ocak I, Lacomis JM, Deible CR, Pealer K, Parag Y, Knollmann F. The aortic root: comparison of measurements from ECG-gated CT angiography with transthoracic echocardiography. J Thorac Imaging. 2009; 24(3):223-226.
92.	Li N, Beck T, Chen J, et al. Assessment of thoracic aortic elasticity: a preliminary study using electrocardiographically gated dual-source CT. Eur Radiol. 2011; 21(7):1564-1572.
93.	Agarwal PP, Chughtai A, Matzinger FR, Kazerooni EA. Multidetector CT of thoracic aortic aneurysms. Radiographics 2009;29:537-52.
94.	Bhave NM, Nienaber CA, Clough RE, Eagle KA. Multimodality Imaging of Thoracic Aortic Diseases in Adults. [Review]. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 11(6):902-919, 2018 06.
95.	Erbel R, Aboyans V, Boileau C, et al. 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases: Document covering acute and chronic aortic diseases of the thoracic and abdominal aorta of the adult. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Aortic Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 35(41):2873-926, 2014 Nov 01.
96.	Aghayev A, Giannopoulos AA, Gronsbell J, et al. Common First-Pass CT Angiography Findings Associated With Rapid Growth Rate in Abdominal Aorta Aneurysms Between 3 and 5 cm in Largest Diameter. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 210(2):431-437, 2018 Feb.
97.	Muluk SL, Muluk PD, Shum J, Finol EA. On the Use of Geometric Modeling to Predict Aortic Aneurysm Rupture. Ann Vasc Surg. 44:190-196, 2017 Oct.
98.	Zha Y, Peng G, Li L, Yang C, Lu X, Peng Z. Quantitative Aortic Distensibility Measurement Using CT in Patients with Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Reproducibility and Clinical Relevance. Biomed Res Int. 2017:5436927, 2017.
99.	Youssefi P, Sharma R, Figueroa CA, Jahangiri M. Functional assessment of thoracic aortic aneurysms - the future of risk prediction?. [Review]. Br Med Bull. 121(1):61-71, 2017 01 01.
100.	Bogaert J, Meyns B, Rademakers FE, et al. Follow-up of aortic dissection: contribution of MR angiography for evaluation of the abdominal aorta and its branches. Eur Radiol. 7(5):695-702, 1997.
101.	Pereles FS, McCarthy RM, Baskaran V, et al. Thoracic aortic dissection and aneurysm: evaluation with nonenhanced true FISP MR angiography in less than 4 minutes. Radiology. 2002;223(1):270-274.
102.	Prince MR, Narasimham DL, Jacoby WT, et al. Three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography of the thoracic aorta. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166(6):1387-1397.
103.	Summers RM, Andrasko-Bourgeois J, Feuerstein IM, et al. Evaluation of the aortic root by MRI: insights from patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Circulation. 98(6):509-18, 1998 Aug 11.
104.	Summers RM, Sostman HD, Spritzer CE, Fidler JL. Fast spoiled gradient-recalled MR imaging of thoracic aortic dissection: preliminary clinical experience at 1.5 T. Magn Reson Imaging. 14(1):1-9, 1996.
105.	Krishnam MS, Tomasian A, Deshpande V, et al. Noncontrast 3D steady-state free-precession magnetic resonance angiography of the whole chest using nonselective radiofrequency excitation over a large field of view: comparison with single-phase 3D contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography. Invest Radiol. 2008; 43(6):411-420.
106.	Krishnam MS, Tomasian A, Malik S, Desphande V, Laub G, Ruehm SG. Image quality and diagnostic accuracy of unenhanced SSFP MR angiography compared with conventional contrast-enhanced MR angiography for the assessment of thoracic aortic diseases. Eur Radiol. 20(6):1311-20, 2010 Jun.
107.	Nienaber CA, von Kodolitsch Y, Brockhoff CJ, Koschyk DH, Spielmann RP. Comparison of conventional and transesophageal echocardiography with magnetic resonance imaging for anatomical mapping of thoracic aortic dissection. A dual noninvasive imaging study with anatomical and/or angiographic validation. Int J Card Imaging. 1994; 10(1):1-14.
108.	Gottsegen JM, Coplan NL. The atherosclerotic aortic arch: considerations in diagnostic imaging. [Review] [39 refs]. Preventive Cardiology. 11(3):162-7, 2008.
109.	Corti R.. Noninvasive imaging of atherosclerotic vessels by MRI for clinical assessment of the effectiveness of therapy. [Review] [79 refs]. Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 110(1):57-70, 2006 Apr.
110.	Nagpal P, Khandelwal A, Saboo SS, Bathla G, Steigner ML, Rybicki FJ. Modern imaging techniques: applications in the management of acute aortic pathologies. [Review]. Postgraduate Medical Journal. 91(1078):449-62, 2015 Aug.
111.	Avramovski P, Avramovska M, Lazarevski M, Sikole A. Femoral neck and spine bone mineral density-Surrogate marker of aortic calcification in postmenopausal women. Anatol J Cardiol. 16(3):202-9, 2016 Mar.
112.	Bondonno NP, Lewis JR, Prince RL, et al. Fruit Intake and Abdominal Aortic Calcification in Elderly Women: A Prospective Cohort Study. Nutrients. 8(3):159, 2016 Mar 10.
113.	Lewis JR, Schousboe JT, Lim WH, et al. Abdominal Aortic Calcification Identified on Lateral Spine Images From Bone Densitometers Are a Marker of Generalized Atherosclerosis in Elderly Women. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis & Vascular Biology. 36(1):166-173, 2016 Jan.
114.	Erbel R, Aboyans V, Boileau C, et al. [2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases]. [Polish]. Kardiologia Polska. 72(12):1169-252, 2014.
115.	Argyriou C, Georgiadis GS, Kontopodis N, et al. Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm During Transthoracic Echocardiography: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. [Review]. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 55(4):475-491, 2018 04.
116.	Evangelista A, Flachskampf FA, Erbel R, et al. Echocardiography in aortic diseases: EAE recommendations for clinical practice. Eur J Echocardiogr. 11(8):645-58, 2010 Sep.
117.	Bieseviciene M, Vaskelyte JJ, Mizariene V, Karaliute R, Lesauskaite V, Verseckaite R. Two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography for evaluation of dilative ascending aorta biomechanics. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. 17(1):27, 2017 01 13.
118.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.