Exact monitoring of aortic diameters in Marfan patients without gadolinium contrast: intraindividual comparison of 2D SSFP imaging with 3D CE-MRA and echocardiography
Standard
Exact monitoring of aortic diameters in Marfan patients without gadolinium contrast: intraindividual comparison of 2D SSFP imaging with 3D CE-MRA and echocardiography. / Veldhoen, Simon; Behzadi, Cyrus; Derlin, Thorsten; Rybczynski, Meike; Kodolitsch, Yskert; Sheikhzadeh, Sara; Henes, Frank Oliver; Bley, Thorsten Alexander; Adam, Gerhard; Bannas, Peter.
In: EUR RADIOL, Vol. 25, No. 3, 01.03.2015, p. 872-82.Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Exact monitoring of aortic diameters in Marfan patients without gadolinium contrast: intraindividual comparison of 2D SSFP imaging with 3D CE-MRA and echocardiography
AU - Veldhoen, Simon
AU - Behzadi, Cyrus
AU - Derlin, Thorsten
AU - Rybczynski, Meike
AU - Kodolitsch, Yskert
AU - Sheikhzadeh, Sara
AU - Henes, Frank Oliver
AU - Bley, Thorsten Alexander
AU - Adam, Gerhard
AU - Bannas, Peter
PY - 2015/3/1
Y1 - 2015/3/1
N2 - PURPOSE: To assess whether ECG-gated non-contrast 2D steady-state free precession (SSFP) imaging allows for exact monitoring of aortic diameters in Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients using non-ECG-gated contrast-enhanced 3D magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) and echocardiography for intraindividual comparison.METHODS: Non-ECG-gated CE-MRA and ECG-gated non-contrast SSFP at 1.5 T were prospectively performed in 50 patients. Two readers measured aortic diameters on para-sagittal images identically aligned with the aortic arch at the sinuses of Valsalva, sinotubular junction, ascending/descending aorta and aortic arch. Image quality was assessed on a three-point scale. Aortic root diameters acquired by echocardiography were used as reference.RESULTS: Intra- and interobserver variances were smaller for SSFP at the sinuses of Valsalva (p = 0.002; p = 0.002) and sinotubular junction (p = 0.014; p = 0.043). Image quality was better in SSFP than in CE-MRA at the sinuses of Valsalva (p < 0.0001), sinotubular junction (p < 0.0001) and ascending aorta (p = 0.02). CE-MRA yielded higher diameters than SSFP at the sinuses of Valsalva (mean bias, 2.5 mm; p < 0.0001), and comparison with echocardiography confirmed a higher bias for CE-MRA (7.2 ± 3.4 mm vs. SSFP, 4.7 ± 2.6 mm).CONCLUSION: ECG-gated non-contrast 2D SSFP imaging provides superior image quality with higher validity compared to non-ECG-gated contrast-enhanced 3D imaging. Since CE-MRA requires contrast agents with potential adverse effects, non-contrast SSFP imaging is an appropriate alternative for exact and riskless aortic monitoring of MFS patients.KEY POINTS: • ECG-gated 2D SSFP imaging provides better image quality than non-ECG-gated contrast-enhanced 3D MRA • ECG-gated 2D SSFP imaging provides higher reproducibility than non-ECG-gated contrast-enhanced 3D MRA • 2D SSFP imaging provides higher validity than 3D MRA using echocardiography as reference • ECG-gated non-contrast 2D SFFP imaging allows for riskless monitoring of Marfan patients.
AB - PURPOSE: To assess whether ECG-gated non-contrast 2D steady-state free precession (SSFP) imaging allows for exact monitoring of aortic diameters in Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients using non-ECG-gated contrast-enhanced 3D magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) and echocardiography for intraindividual comparison.METHODS: Non-ECG-gated CE-MRA and ECG-gated non-contrast SSFP at 1.5 T were prospectively performed in 50 patients. Two readers measured aortic diameters on para-sagittal images identically aligned with the aortic arch at the sinuses of Valsalva, sinotubular junction, ascending/descending aorta and aortic arch. Image quality was assessed on a three-point scale. Aortic root diameters acquired by echocardiography were used as reference.RESULTS: Intra- and interobserver variances were smaller for SSFP at the sinuses of Valsalva (p = 0.002; p = 0.002) and sinotubular junction (p = 0.014; p = 0.043). Image quality was better in SSFP than in CE-MRA at the sinuses of Valsalva (p < 0.0001), sinotubular junction (p < 0.0001) and ascending aorta (p = 0.02). CE-MRA yielded higher diameters than SSFP at the sinuses of Valsalva (mean bias, 2.5 mm; p < 0.0001), and comparison with echocardiography confirmed a higher bias for CE-MRA (7.2 ± 3.4 mm vs. SSFP, 4.7 ± 2.6 mm).CONCLUSION: ECG-gated non-contrast 2D SSFP imaging provides superior image quality with higher validity compared to non-ECG-gated contrast-enhanced 3D imaging. Since CE-MRA requires contrast agents with potential adverse effects, non-contrast SSFP imaging is an appropriate alternative for exact and riskless aortic monitoring of MFS patients.KEY POINTS: • ECG-gated 2D SSFP imaging provides better image quality than non-ECG-gated contrast-enhanced 3D MRA • ECG-gated 2D SSFP imaging provides higher reproducibility than non-ECG-gated contrast-enhanced 3D MRA • 2D SSFP imaging provides higher validity than 3D MRA using echocardiography as reference • ECG-gated non-contrast 2D SFFP imaging allows for riskless monitoring of Marfan patients.
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-014-3457-6
DO - 10.1007/s00330-014-3457-6
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 25316057
VL - 25
SP - 872
EP - 882
JO - EUR RADIOL
JF - EUR RADIOL
SN - 0938-7994
IS - 3
ER -