Cargando…

Assessment of aortic diameter in Marfan patients: intraindividual comparison of 3D-Dixon and 2D-SSFP magnetic resonance imaging

OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy and precision of 3D-Dixon and 2D-SSFP MR-imaging for assessment of aortic diameter in Marfan patients. METHODS: This prospective single-center study investigated respiratory-gated 3D-Dixon and breath-hold 2D-SSFP non-contrast MR-imaging at 3 T in 47 Marfan patient...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wright, Felicia, Warncke, Malte, Sinn, Martin, Ristow, Inka, Lenz, Alexander, Riedel, Christoph, Schoennagel, Bjoern P., Zhang, Shuo, Kaul, Michael G., Adam, Gerhard, von Kodolitsch, Yskert, Sehner, Susanne, Bannas, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9935710/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36269370
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09162-y
_version_ 1784890076588670976
author Wright, Felicia
Warncke, Malte
Sinn, Martin
Ristow, Inka
Lenz, Alexander
Riedel, Christoph
Schoennagel, Bjoern P.
Zhang, Shuo
Kaul, Michael G.
Adam, Gerhard
von Kodolitsch, Yskert
Sehner, Susanne
Bannas, Peter
author_facet Wright, Felicia
Warncke, Malte
Sinn, Martin
Ristow, Inka
Lenz, Alexander
Riedel, Christoph
Schoennagel, Bjoern P.
Zhang, Shuo
Kaul, Michael G.
Adam, Gerhard
von Kodolitsch, Yskert
Sehner, Susanne
Bannas, Peter
author_sort Wright, Felicia
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy and precision of 3D-Dixon and 2D-SSFP MR-imaging for assessment of aortic diameter in Marfan patients. METHODS: This prospective single-center study investigated respiratory-gated 3D-Dixon and breath-hold 2D-SSFP non-contrast MR-imaging at 3 T in 47 Marfan patients (36.0 ± 13.2 years, 28♀,19♂). Two radiologists performed individual diameter measurements at five levels of the thoracic aorta and evaluated image quality on a four-grade scale (1 = poor, 4 = excellent) and artifacts (1 = severe, 4 = none). Aortic root diameters acquired by echocardiography served as a reference standard. Intraclass correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman analyses, F-test, t-test, and regression analyses were used to assess agreement between observers and methods. RESULTS: Greatest aortic diameters were observed at the level of the sinuses of Valsalva (SOV) for 3D-Dixon (38.2 ± 6.8 mm) and 2D-SSFP (38.3 ± 7.1 mm) (p = 0.53). Intra- and interobserver correlation of diameter measurements was excellent at all aortic levels for both 3D-Dixon (r = 0.94–0.99 and r = 0.94–0.98) and 2D-SSFP (r = 0.96–1.00 and r = 0.95–0.99). 3D-Dixon-derived and 2D-SSFP-derived diameter measurements at the level of the SOV revealed a strong correlation with echocardiographic measurements (r = 0.92, p < 0.001 and r = 0.93, p < 0.001, respectively). The estimated mean image quality at the level of SOV was higher for 2D-SSFP compared to that for 3D-Dixon (3.3 (95%-CI: 3.1–3.5) vs. 2.9 (95%-CI: 2.7–3.1)) (p < 0.001). Imaging artifacts were less at all aortic levels for 3D-Dixon compared to 2D-SSFP (3.4–3.8 vs. 2.8–3.1) (all p < 0.002). CONCLUSION: Respiratory-gated 3D-Dixon and breath-hold 2D-SSFP MR-imaging provide accurate and precise aortic diameter measurements. We recommend 3D-Dixon imaging for monitoring of aortic diameter in Marfan patients due to fewer imaging artifacts and the possibility of orthogonal multiplanar reformations of the aortic root. KEY POINTS: • Respiratory-gated 3D-Dixon and breath-hold 2D-SSFP imaging provide accurate and precise aortic diameter measurements in patients suffering from Marfan syndrome. • Imaging artifacts are stronger in 2D-SFFP imaging than in 3D-Dixon imaging. • We recommend 3D-Dixon imaging for monitoring of aortic diameter in Marfan patients due to fewer imaging artifacts and the possibility of orthogonal multiplanar reformations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9935710
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99357102023-02-18 Assessment of aortic diameter in Marfan patients: intraindividual comparison of 3D-Dixon and 2D-SSFP magnetic resonance imaging Wright, Felicia Warncke, Malte Sinn, Martin Ristow, Inka Lenz, Alexander Riedel, Christoph Schoennagel, Bjoern P. Zhang, Shuo Kaul, Michael G. Adam, Gerhard von Kodolitsch, Yskert Sehner, Susanne Bannas, Peter Eur Radiol Magnetic Resonance OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy and precision of 3D-Dixon and 2D-SSFP MR-imaging for assessment of aortic diameter in Marfan patients. METHODS: This prospective single-center study investigated respiratory-gated 3D-Dixon and breath-hold 2D-SSFP non-contrast MR-imaging at 3 T in 47 Marfan patients (36.0 ± 13.2 years, 28♀,19♂). Two radiologists performed individual diameter measurements at five levels of the thoracic aorta and evaluated image quality on a four-grade scale (1 = poor, 4 = excellent) and artifacts (1 = severe, 4 = none). Aortic root diameters acquired by echocardiography served as a reference standard. Intraclass correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman analyses, F-test, t-test, and regression analyses were used to assess agreement between observers and methods. RESULTS: Greatest aortic diameters were observed at the level of the sinuses of Valsalva (SOV) for 3D-Dixon (38.2 ± 6.8 mm) and 2D-SSFP (38.3 ± 7.1 mm) (p = 0.53). Intra- and interobserver correlation of diameter measurements was excellent at all aortic levels for both 3D-Dixon (r = 0.94–0.99 and r = 0.94–0.98) and 2D-SSFP (r = 0.96–1.00 and r = 0.95–0.99). 3D-Dixon-derived and 2D-SSFP-derived diameter measurements at the level of the SOV revealed a strong correlation with echocardiographic measurements (r = 0.92, p < 0.001 and r = 0.93, p < 0.001, respectively). The estimated mean image quality at the level of SOV was higher for 2D-SSFP compared to that for 3D-Dixon (3.3 (95%-CI: 3.1–3.5) vs. 2.9 (95%-CI: 2.7–3.1)) (p < 0.001). Imaging artifacts were less at all aortic levels for 3D-Dixon compared to 2D-SSFP (3.4–3.8 vs. 2.8–3.1) (all p < 0.002). CONCLUSION: Respiratory-gated 3D-Dixon and breath-hold 2D-SSFP MR-imaging provide accurate and precise aortic diameter measurements. We recommend 3D-Dixon imaging for monitoring of aortic diameter in Marfan patients due to fewer imaging artifacts and the possibility of orthogonal multiplanar reformations of the aortic root. KEY POINTS: • Respiratory-gated 3D-Dixon and breath-hold 2D-SSFP imaging provide accurate and precise aortic diameter measurements in patients suffering from Marfan syndrome. • Imaging artifacts are stronger in 2D-SFFP imaging than in 3D-Dixon imaging. • We recommend 3D-Dixon imaging for monitoring of aortic diameter in Marfan patients due to fewer imaging artifacts and the possibility of orthogonal multiplanar reformations. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-10-21 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9935710/ /pubmed/36269370 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09162-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Magnetic Resonance
Wright, Felicia
Warncke, Malte
Sinn, Martin
Ristow, Inka
Lenz, Alexander
Riedel, Christoph
Schoennagel, Bjoern P.
Zhang, Shuo
Kaul, Michael G.
Adam, Gerhard
von Kodolitsch, Yskert
Sehner, Susanne
Bannas, Peter
Assessment of aortic diameter in Marfan patients: intraindividual comparison of 3D-Dixon and 2D-SSFP magnetic resonance imaging
title Assessment of aortic diameter in Marfan patients: intraindividual comparison of 3D-Dixon and 2D-SSFP magnetic resonance imaging
title_full Assessment of aortic diameter in Marfan patients: intraindividual comparison of 3D-Dixon and 2D-SSFP magnetic resonance imaging
title_fullStr Assessment of aortic diameter in Marfan patients: intraindividual comparison of 3D-Dixon and 2D-SSFP magnetic resonance imaging
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of aortic diameter in Marfan patients: intraindividual comparison of 3D-Dixon and 2D-SSFP magnetic resonance imaging
title_short Assessment of aortic diameter in Marfan patients: intraindividual comparison of 3D-Dixon and 2D-SSFP magnetic resonance imaging
title_sort assessment of aortic diameter in marfan patients: intraindividual comparison of 3d-dixon and 2d-ssfp magnetic resonance imaging
topic Magnetic Resonance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9935710/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36269370
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09162-y
work_keys_str_mv AT wrightfelicia assessmentofaorticdiameterinmarfanpatientsintraindividualcomparisonof3ddixonand2dssfpmagneticresonanceimaging
AT warnckemalte assessmentofaorticdiameterinmarfanpatientsintraindividualcomparisonof3ddixonand2dssfpmagneticresonanceimaging
AT sinnmartin assessmentofaorticdiameterinmarfanpatientsintraindividualcomparisonof3ddixonand2dssfpmagneticresonanceimaging
AT ristowinka assessmentofaorticdiameterinmarfanpatientsintraindividualcomparisonof3ddixonand2dssfpmagneticresonanceimaging
AT lenzalexander assessmentofaorticdiameterinmarfanpatientsintraindividualcomparisonof3ddixonand2dssfpmagneticresonanceimaging
AT riedelchristoph assessmentofaorticdiameterinmarfanpatientsintraindividualcomparisonof3ddixonand2dssfpmagneticresonanceimaging
AT schoennagelbjoernp assessmentofaorticdiameterinmarfanpatientsintraindividualcomparisonof3ddixonand2dssfpmagneticresonanceimaging
AT zhangshuo assessmentofaorticdiameterinmarfanpatientsintraindividualcomparisonof3ddixonand2dssfpmagneticresonanceimaging
AT kaulmichaelg assessmentofaorticdiameterinmarfanpatientsintraindividualcomparisonof3ddixonand2dssfpmagneticresonanceimaging
AT adamgerhard assessmentofaorticdiameterinmarfanpatientsintraindividualcomparisonof3ddixonand2dssfpmagneticresonanceimaging
AT vonkodolitschyskert assessmentofaorticdiameterinmarfanpatientsintraindividualcomparisonof3ddixonand2dssfpmagneticresonanceimaging
AT sehnersusanne assessmentofaorticdiameterinmarfanpatientsintraindividualcomparisonof3ddixonand2dssfpmagneticresonanceimaging
AT bannaspeter assessmentofaorticdiameterinmarfanpatientsintraindividualcomparisonof3ddixonand2dssfpmagneticresonanceimaging