Esteban M J, Font C, Hernández-Rodríguez J, Valls-Solé J, Sanmartí R, Cardellach F, García-Martínez A, Campo E, Urbano-Márquez A, Grau J M, Cid M C
Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions, Biomediques August Pi i Sunyer, Spain.
Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Jun;44(6):1387-95. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(200106)44:6<1387::AID-ART232>3.0.CO;2-B.
Occasionally, a temporal artery biopsy reveals small-vessel vasculitis (SVV) surrounding a spared temporal artery, the significance of which is unclear. We analyzed the final diagnosis in a series of patients with this condition and tried to identify histopathologic features with potential usefulness in predicting the ultimate diagnosis.
We performed a clinical and histopathologic review of 28 patients in whom SVV surrounding a spared temporal artery was the first histologic finding that led to the diagnosis of vasculitis. For comparison purposes, we analyzed the pattern of small vessel involvement in 30 patients with biopsy-proven giant cell arteritis (GCA).
GCA was considered the most likely diagnosis in 12 patients, based on the absence of clinical evidence of additional organ involvement and normal findings on muscle biopsy and electrophysiologic study. Three patients had systemic necrotizing vasculitis (SNV), based on the demonstration of typical lesions on subsequent muscle, nerve, or kidney biopsy. After extensive evaluation, 4 patients remained unclassifiable. Nine patients were incompletely studied. Fibrinoid necrosis was significantly more frequent in patients with SNV (P = 0.0022), whereas involvement of vasa vasorum was more frequent in patients classified as having GCA (P = 0.022). No differences in the pattern of small vessel involvement were found in patients with SVV surrounding a spared temporal artery who were classified as having GCA compared with patients with biopsy-proven GCA. Granulocytes were observed at similar frequency in all conditions.
SVV may be the only abnormal feature in a temporal artery biopsy and the only histologic evidence of vasculitis. The diagnosis of GCA can be reasonably established in most of these patients when there is no apparent evidence of additional organ involvement. However, when fibrinoid necrosis is observed or the temporal artery vasa vasorum are not involved, SNV must be extensively excluded.
偶尔,颞动脉活检显示在未受累颞动脉周围存在小血管血管炎(SVV),其意义尚不清楚。我们分析了一系列患有这种情况的患者的最终诊断,并试图确定在预测最终诊断方面可能有用的组织病理学特征。
我们对28例患者进行了临床和组织病理学回顾,这些患者中,未受累颞动脉周围的SVV是导致血管炎诊断的首个组织学发现。为作比较,我们分析了30例经活检证实为巨细胞动脉炎(GCA)患者的小血管受累模式。
12例患者被认为最可能的诊断是GCA,这是基于没有其他器官受累的临床证据以及肌肉活检和电生理研究结果正常。3例患者患有系统性坏死性血管炎(SNV),这是基于后续肌肉、神经或肾脏活检显示典型病变。经过广泛评估,4例患者仍无法分类。9例患者研究不完整。纤维蛋白样坏死在SNV患者中明显更常见(P = 0.0022),而血管滋养管受累在被分类为患有GCA的患者中更常见(P = 0.022)。在被分类为患有GCA的未受累颞动脉周围有SVV的患者与经活检证实为GCA的患者之间,未发现小血管受累模式有差异。在所有情况下,粒细胞的观察频率相似。
SVV可能是颞动脉活检中唯一的异常特征,也是血管炎的唯一组织学证据。当没有明显的其他器官受累证据时,大多数这些患者可以合理地诊断为GCA。然而,当观察到纤维蛋白样坏死或颞动脉血管滋养管未受累时,必须广泛排除SNV。