Premium
Measuring aortic diameter with different MR techniques: Comparison of three‐dimensional (3D) navigated steady‐state free‐precession (SSFP), 3D contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE‐MRA), 2D T2 black blood, and 2D cine SSFP
Author(s) -
Potthast Silke,
Mitsumori Lee,
Stanescu Luana A.,
Richardson Michael L.,
Branch Kelley,
Dubinsky Theodore J.,
Maki Jeffrey H.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.22016
Subject(s) - steady state free precession imaging , magnetic resonance angiography , medicine , nuclear medicine , magnetic resonance imaging , aorta , ascending aorta , radiology , nuclear magnetic resonance , physics , cardiology
Purpose: To compare nongated three‐dimensional (3D) contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE‐MRA) with 3D‐navigated cardiac‐gated steady‐state free‐precession bright blood (3D‐nav SSFP) and noncontrast 2D techniques for ascending aorta dimension measurements. Materials and Methods: Twenty‐five clinical exams were reviewed to evaluate the ascending aorta at 1.5T using: breathhold cine bright blood (SSFP), cardiac‐triggered T2 black blood (T2 BB), axial 3D‐nav SSFP, and nongated 3D CE‐MRA. Three radiologists independently measured aortic size at three specified locations for each sequence. Means, SDs, interobserver correlation, and vessel edge sharpness were statistically evaluated. Results: Measurements were greatest for 3D‐nav SSFP and 3D CE‐MRA and smallest for T2 BB. There was no significant difference between 3D‐nav SSFP and 3D CE‐MRA ( P = 0.43–0.86), but significance was observed comparing T2 BB to all sequences. Interobserver agreement was uniformly >0.9, with T2 BB best, followed closely by 3D‐nav SSFP and 2D cine SSFP, and 3D CE‐MRA being the worst. Edge sharpness was significantly poorer for 3D CE‐MRA compared to the other sequences ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: If diameter measurements are the main clinical concern, 3D‐nav SSFP appears to be the best choice, as it has a sharp edge profile, is easy to acquire and postprocess, and shows very good interobserver correlation. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2010;31:177–184. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.