Levent KILIÇ, Abdulsamet ERDEN, Ayşe Bahar KELEŞOĞLU DİNÇER, Umut KALYONCU, Sedat KİRAZ, Ömer KARADAĞ, Tuncay HAZIROLAN

Imaging modalities used in diagnosis and follow-up of patients with Takayasu’s arteritis

Background/aim: Takayasu’s arteritis (TA) is a rare, large-vessel vasculitis of unknown etiology, affecting aortic arch, and its main branches. Noninvasive imaging methods are frequently used in diagnosis and follow-up in Takayasu’s arteritis. Studies investigating optimal timing of follow up imaging are rare. This study is aimed to investigate the radiologic changes in vascular involvements of Takayasu’s arteritis patients one year after diagnosis. Materials and methods: Database of our Vasculitis Center was analyzed retrospectively and 97 patients were included into the study. Demographic, clinical, radiological, and therapeutic findings of patients were recorded. Patients with follow-up imaging after approximately one year of diagnosis were recruited into further analysis. Radiological changes and the effect of different immunosuppressive agents on vascular involvements were investigated. Results: Mean age and disease duration of patients were 43.0 and 9.0 years. The most commonly used imaging methods/modalities for the diagnosis of TA were computer tomography-angiography (CT-Ang) (58.8%), magnetic resonance-angiography (MR-Ang) (29.9%), and doppler ultrasonography (11.3%). Subclavian and common carotid arteries were the most frequently involved vessels. Fifty-three patients underwent follow-up imaging after one year of diagnosis and, in 64% of patients, same imaging method had been used. MRAng (62.3%) and CT-Ang (35.9%) were the most preferred follow-up imaging studies. Sixty-eight percent of patients had stable vascular involvement, 28% had progression, and 4% had regression. No difference was found in radiological changes regarding patients with usage of different immunosuppressive agents (P = 0.634). There was no association between the change in serum acute phase reactants and radiological disease activity. Conclusion: The most commonly used imaging modality for the diagnosis of TA was CT-Ang, whereas MR-Ang was the most preferred for follow-up. Almost 30% of TA patients in our Vasculitis Center had progression at around one year concordant with previous literature. A follow-up imaging at around one year of treatment seems feasible in management of TA.Key words: Takayasu’s arteritis, computer tomography angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, doppler ultrasonography, conventional angiography, positron-emission tomography

PDF

___

1. Keser G, Direskeneli H, Aksu K. Management of Takayasu arteritis:a systematic review. Rheumatology 2014; 53:793-801. doi:10.1093/Rheumatology/ket320
2. Dejaco C, Ramiro S, Duftner C, Besson F, Bley T et al. EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in large vessel vasculitis in clinical practice. Annals Of Rheumatic Diseases. 2018; 77: 636-643. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212649
3. Arend WP, Michel BA, Bloch DA, Hunder GG, Calabrese LH et al. The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of Takayasu arteritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1990; 33: 1129-1134. doi:10.1002/art.1780330811
4. Hata A, Noda M, Moriwaki R, Numano F. Angiographic findings of Takayasu arteritis: new classification. International Journal Of Cardiology 1996; 54 (Suppl) 155-163. doi:10.1016/ S0167-5273(96)02813-6
5. Ohigashi H, Haraguchi G, Konishi M, Tezuka D, Kamiishi T et al. Improved prognosis of Takayasu arteritis over the past decade: Comprehensive analysis of 106 patients. Circulation Journal 2012; 76: 1004-1011. Doi:10.1253/circj.cj-11-1108
6. Freitas DS, Camargo CZ, Mariz HA, Arraes AED, de Souza AW. Takayasu arteritis: assessment of response to medical therapy based on clinical activity criteria and imaging techniques. Rheumatology International 2012; 32: 703-709. doi:10.1007/ s00296-010-1694-9
7. Moriwaki R, Noda M, Yajima M, Sharma BK, Numano F. Clinical manifestations of Takayasu arteritis in India and Japan—new classification of angiographic findings. Angiology 1997; 48: 369-379. doi: 10.1177/000331979704800501
8. Maffei S, Di Renzo M, Bova G, Auteri A, Pasqui AL. Takayasu’s arteritis: A review of the literature. Internal And Emergency Medicine 2006; 1: 105-12. doi: 10.1007/BF02936534
9. Bicakcigil M, Aksu K, Kamali S, Ozbalkan S, Ates A et al. Takayasu arteritis in Turkey–clinical and angiographic features of 248 patients. Clinical And Experimental Rheumatology 2009; 27(Suppl 52): S59-S64.
10. Jiang W, Yang Y, Lv X, Li Y, Ma Z et al. Echocardiographic characteristics of pulmonary artery involvement in Takayasu arteritis. Echocardiography 2017; 34 (3): 340-347. doi:10.1111/ echo.13464
11. Sharma S, Kamalakar T, Rajani M, Talwar KK, Shrivastava S. The incidence and patterns of pulmonary artery involvement in Takayasu’s arteritis. Clinical Radiology 1990; 42 (3): 177- 181. doi:10.1016/s0009-9260(05)81929-4
12. Baldwin C, Mohammed AJ, Cousins C, Carette S, Pagnoux C et al. Long-term outcomes of patients with Takayasu arteritis and renal artery involvement: a cohort study. Rheumatology Advances In Practice 2018;0:1-7. doi:10.1093/rap/rky026
13. Chatterjee S, Flamm SD, Tan CD, Rodriguez ED. Clinical diagnosis and management of large vessel vasculitis: takayasu arteritis. Clinical Cardiology Reports 2014; 16: 499-509. doi:10.1007/s11886-014-0499-y
14. Maksimowicz-MckKinnon K, Clark TM, Hoffman GS. Limitations of therapy and a guarded prognosis in an American cohort of Takayasu arteritis patients. Arthritis and Rheumatism 2007; 56: 1000-1009. doi:10.1002/art.22404
15. Tombetti E, Mason JC. Takayasus arteritis: advanced understanding is leading to new horizons. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2019; 58 (2): 206-219. Doi:10.1093/rheumatology/ key040
16. Kerr GS, Hallahan CW, Giordano J, Leavitt RY, Fauci As et al. Takayasu arteritis. Annals of Internal Medicine 1994; 120: 919- 929. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-120-11-199406010-00004
17. Aydın SZ, Yılmaz N, Akar S, Aksu K, Kamali S et al. Assessment of disease activity and progression in Takayasu’s arteritis with disease extent ındex-Takayasu. Rheumatology 2010; 49: 1889- 1893. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keq171
18. Lagneau P, Michel JB, Vuong PN. Surgical treatment of Takayasu’s disease. Annals of Surgery 1987; 205:157-166. doi:10.1097/00000658-198702000-00010
19. Tombetti E, Godi C, Ambrosi A, Doyle F, Jacobs A et al. Novel angiographic scores for evaluation of large vessel vasculitis. Scientific Reports 2018; 8: 1-11. doi:10.1038/s41598-018- 34395-7
20. Nakagomi D, Cousins C, Sznajd J, Furuta S, Mohammad AJ et al. Development of a score for assessment of radiologic damage in large vessel vasculitis (Combined arteritis damage score, CARDS). Clinical And Experimental Rheumatology 2017; 35: 139-145.
21. Mavrogeni S, Dimitroulas T,Chatzioannou, Kitas G. The role of multimodality imaging int the evaluation of Takayasu arteritis. Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism 2013; 42: 401-412. doi: 10.1016.j.semarthrit.2012.07.005
22. Isobe M. Takayasu arteritis revisited: current diagnosis and treatment. International Journal Of Cardiology 2013; 168: 3-10. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.01.022
23. Misra R, Danda D, Rajappa SM, Ghosh A, Gupta R et al. Indian Rheumatology Vasculitis (IRAVAS) Group. Development and initial validation of the Indian Takayasu Clinical Activity Score (ITAS2010). Rheumatology. 2013; 52: 1795-801. doi:10.1093/ rheumatology/ket128