These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of native high-resolution 3D and contrast-enhanced MR angiography for assessing the thoracic aorta.
    Author: von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff F, Gruettner H, Trauzeddel RF, Greiser A, Schulz-Menger J.
    Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging; 2014 Jun; 15(6):651-8. PubMed ID: 24399340.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: To omit risks of contrast agent administration, native magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) is desired for assessing the thoracic aorta. The aim was to evaluate a native steady-state free precession (SSFP) three-dimensional (3D) MRA in comparison with contrast-enhanced MRA as the gold standard. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-six prospective patients with known or suspicion of thoracic aortic disease underwent MRA at 1.5 T using (i) native 3D SSFP MRA with ECG and navigator gating and high isotropic spatial resolution (1.3 × 1.3 × 1.3 mm(3)) and (ii) conventional contrast-enhanced ECG-gated gradient-echo 3D MRA (1.3 × 0.8 × 1.8 mm(3)). Datasets were compared at nine aortic levels regarding image quality (score 0-3: 0 = poor, 3 = excellent) and aortic diameters, as well as observer dependency and final diagnosis. Statistical tests included paired t-test, correlation analysis, and Bland-Altman analysis. Native 3D MRA was acquired successfully in 70 of 76 subjects (mean acquisition time 8.6 ± 2.7 min), while irregular breathing excluded 6 of 76 subjects. Aortic diameters agreed close between both methods at all aortic levels (r = 0.99; bias ± SD -0.12 ± 1.2 mm) with low intra- and inter-observer dependency (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.99). Native MRA studies resulted in the same final diagnosis as the contrast-enhanced MRA. The mean image quality score was superior with native compared with contrast-enhanced MRA (2.4 ± 0.6 vs. 1.6 ± 0.5; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Accuracy of aortic size measurements, certainty in defining the diagnosis and benefits in image quality at the aortic root, underscore the use of the tested high-resolution native 3D SSFP MRA as an appropriate alternative to contrast-enhanced MRA to assess the thoracic aorta.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]