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
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
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/jmri.22016
复制
发表时间：
2010-01-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Maki, Jeffrey H.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Potthast, Silke;Mitsumori, Lee;Maki, Jeffrey H.
目的：比较非增强三维(3D)增强磁共振血管成像(CE-MRA)与3D导航的心脏稳态自由进动亮血(3D-NAV SSFP)和非增强2D技术测量升主动脉内径的差异。材料和方法：回顾分析25例临床检查，采用屏气电影亮血(SSFP)、心脏触发T2黑血(T2 BB)、轴位3D NAV SSFP和非增强3D CE-MRA对1.5T的升主动脉进行评价。三位放射科医生在每个序列的三个指定位置独立测量了主动脉大小。结果：3D-NAV SSFP和3D CE-MRA的测量值最大，T2 BB的测量值最小。3D-NAV SSFP序列与3D CE-MRA序列差异无统计学意义(P=0.43~0.86)，T2 BB序列与所有序列比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察者之间的一致性一致为>；0.9，T2 BB最好，紧随其后的是3D-NAV SSFP和2D Cine SSFP。3D CE-MRA表现最差。3D CE-MRA的边缘清晰度明显低于其他序列(P<；0.001)。结论：如果直径测量是临床主要关注的问题，3D-NAV SSFP似乎是最好的选择，因为它具有清晰的边缘轮廓，易于获取和后处理，并显示出很好的观察者间相关性。
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 post-process, and shows very good interobserver correlation.