[The current place of non-invasive large-vessel imaging in the diagnosis and follow-up of giant cell arteritis].

Large vessel involvement in giant cell arteritis has long been described, although its right frequency and potential prognostic value have only been highlighted for two decades. Large vessel involvement not only is associated with a high incidence of late aortic aneurysms, but also might cause greater resistance to glucocorticoids and longer treatment duration, as well as worse late cardiovascular outcomes. These data were brought to our attention, thanks to substantial progress recently made in large vessel imaging. This relies on four single, often complementary, approaches of varying availability: colour Doppler ultrasound, contrast-enhanced computed tomography with angiography and, magnetic resonance imaging, which all demonstrate homogeneous circumferential wall thickening and describe structural changes; 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT), which depicts wall inflammation and assesses many vascular territories in the same examination. In addition, integrated head-and-neck PET/CT can accurately and reliably diagnose cranial arteritis. All four procedures exhibit high diagnostic performance for a large vessel arteritis diagnosis so that the choice is left to the physician, depending on local practices and accessibility; the most important is to carry out the chosen modality without delay to avoid false or equivocal results, due to early vascular oedema changes as a result of high dose glucocorticoid treatment. Yet, ultrasound study of the superficial cranial and subclavian/axillary arteries remains a first line assessment aimed at strengthening and expediting the clinical diagnosis as well as raising suspicion of large-vessel involvement. In treated patients, vascular imaging results are poorly correlated with clinical-biological controlled disease so that it is strongly recommended not to renew imaging studies unless a large vessel relapse or complication is suspected. On the other hand, a structural monitoring of aorta following giant cell arteritis is mandatory, but uncertainties remain regarding the best procedural approach, timing of first control and spacing between controls. Individuals at greater risk of developing aortic complication, e.g. those with classic risk factors for aneurysm and/or visualised aortitis, should be monitored more closely.
(Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)