Radial self-navigated native magnetic resonance angiography in comparison to navigator-gated contrast-enhanced MRA of the entire thoracic aorta in an aortic patient collective.
Aortic diseases
MRI angiography
Steady-state free precession MRA
Thoracic aorta
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
ISSN: 1532-429X
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815616
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 07 2021
12 07 2021
Historique:
received:
23
03
2020
accepted:
12
05
2021
entrez:
12
7
2021
pubmed:
13
7
2021
medline:
29
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The native balanced steady state with free precession (bSSFP) magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) technique has been shown to provide high diagnostic image quality for thoracic aortic disease. This study compares a 3D radial respiratory self-navigated native MRA (native-SN-MRA) based on a bSSFP sequence with conventional Cartesian, 3D, contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) with navigator-gated respiration control for image quality of the entire thoracic aorta. Thirty-one aortic native-SN-MRA were compared retrospectively (63.9 ± 10.3 years) to 61 CE-MRA (63.1 ± 11.7 years) serving as a reference standard. Image quality was evaluated at the aortic root/ascending aorta, aortic arch and descending aorta. Scan time was recorded. In 10 patients with both MRA sequences, aortic pathologies were evaluated and normal and pathologic aortic diameters were measured. The influence of artifacts on image quality was analyzed. Compared to the overall image quality of CE-MRA, the overall image quality of native-SN-MRA was superior for all segments analyzed (aortic root/ascending, p < 0.001; arch, p < 0.001, and descending, p = 0.005). Regarding artifacts, the image quality of native-SN-MRA remained superior at the aortic root/ascending aorta and aortic arch before and after correction for confounders of surgical material (i.e., susceptibility-related artifacts) (p = 0.008 both) suggesting a benefit in terms of motion artifacts. Native-SN-MRA showed a trend towards superior intraindividual image quality, but without statistical significance. Intraindividually, the sensitivity and specificity for the detection of aortic disease were 100% for native-SN-MRA. Aortic diameters did not show a significant difference (p = 0.899). The scan time of the native-SN-MRA was significantly reduced, with a mean of 05:56 ± 01:32 min vs. 08:51 ± 02:57 min in the CE-MRA (p < 0.001). Superior image quality of the entire thoracic aorta, also regarding artifacts, can be achieved with native-SN-MRA, especially in motion prone segments, in addition to a shorter acquisition time.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The native balanced steady state with free precession (bSSFP) magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) technique has been shown to provide high diagnostic image quality for thoracic aortic disease. This study compares a 3D radial respiratory self-navigated native MRA (native-SN-MRA) based on a bSSFP sequence with conventional Cartesian, 3D, contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) with navigator-gated respiration control for image quality of the entire thoracic aorta.
METHODS
Thirty-one aortic native-SN-MRA were compared retrospectively (63.9 ± 10.3 years) to 61 CE-MRA (63.1 ± 11.7 years) serving as a reference standard. Image quality was evaluated at the aortic root/ascending aorta, aortic arch and descending aorta. Scan time was recorded. In 10 patients with both MRA sequences, aortic pathologies were evaluated and normal and pathologic aortic diameters were measured. The influence of artifacts on image quality was analyzed.
RESULTS
Compared to the overall image quality of CE-MRA, the overall image quality of native-SN-MRA was superior for all segments analyzed (aortic root/ascending, p < 0.001; arch, p < 0.001, and descending, p = 0.005). Regarding artifacts, the image quality of native-SN-MRA remained superior at the aortic root/ascending aorta and aortic arch before and after correction for confounders of surgical material (i.e., susceptibility-related artifacts) (p = 0.008 both) suggesting a benefit in terms of motion artifacts. Native-SN-MRA showed a trend towards superior intraindividual image quality, but without statistical significance. Intraindividually, the sensitivity and specificity for the detection of aortic disease were 100% for native-SN-MRA. Aortic diameters did not show a significant difference (p = 0.899). The scan time of the native-SN-MRA was significantly reduced, with a mean of 05:56 ± 01:32 min vs. 08:51 ± 02:57 min in the CE-MRA (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Superior image quality of the entire thoracic aorta, also regarding artifacts, can be achieved with native-SN-MRA, especially in motion prone segments, in addition to a shorter acquisition time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34247640
doi: 10.1186/s12968-021-00774-9
pii: 10.1186/s12968-021-00774-9
pmc: PMC8274024
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
94Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Magn Reson Med. 2012 Aug;68(2):571-9
pubmed: 22213169
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999 Mar;9(3):395-401
pubmed: 10194709
Magn Reson Med. 2011 Oct;66(4):1049-56
pubmed: 21469185
Eur Radiol. 2010 Jun;20(6):1311-20
pubmed: 20013276
Magn Reson Med Sci. 2007;6(3):157-70
pubmed: 18037796
Stat Med. 2014 Jul 30;33(17):2968-83
pubmed: 24599880
Radiology. 2014 Feb;270(2):378-86
pubmed: 24471387
Magn Reson Med. 2019 Jan;81(1):524-532
pubmed: 30229565
Eur Radiol. 2016 Apr;26(4):951-8
pubmed: 26188657
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Apr;190(4):902-6
pubmed: 18356435
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Apr;22(4):719-48
pubmed: 13655060
Stat Methods Med Res. 2015 Apr;24(2):224-54
pubmed: 21996567
Circulation. 2010 Apr 6;121(13):e266-369
pubmed: 20233780
Magn Reson Med. 2004 Jul;52(1):197-203
pubmed: 15236387
Radiographics. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):1311-21
pubmed: 17848693
Radiographics. 2011 Mar-Apr;31(2):435-51
pubmed: 21415189
Magn Reson Med. 2003 Feb;49(2):395-7
pubmed: 12541263
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015 Apr 18;17:29
pubmed: 25928314
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015 Jul 09;17:55
pubmed: 26156377
Magn Reson Med. 2005 Aug;54(2):476-80
pubmed: 16032682
Magn Reson Med. 2018 Mar;79(3):1293-1303
pubmed: 28568961
Magn Reson Med. 2016 Apr;75(4):1594-604
pubmed: 25960337
Radiology. 1996 Jan;198(1):55-60
pubmed: 8539406
Radiology. 2005 Oct;237(1):316-21
pubmed: 16126921