PURPOSE: To assess the agreement between three methods of calculation of mean aortic wall thickness (MAWT) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: High-resolution MRI of the infrarenal abdominal aorta was performed on 70 subjects with a history of coronary artery disease who were part of a multi-ethnic population-based sample. MAWT was calculated as the mean distance between the adventitial and luminal aortic boundaries using three different methods: average distance at four standard positions (AWT-4P), average distance at 100 automated positions (AWT-100P), and using a mathematical computation derived from the total vessel and luminal areas (AWT-VA). Bland-Altman plots and Passing-Bablok regression analyses were used to assess agreement between methods. RESULTS: Bland-Altman analyses demonstrated a positive bias of 3.02+/-7.31% between the AWT-VA and the AWT-4P methods, and of 1.76+/-6.82% between the AWT-100P and the AWT-4P methods. Passing-Bablok regression analyses demonstrated constant bias between the AWT-4P method and the other two methods. Proportional bias was, however, not evident among the three methods. CONCLUSION: MRI methods of measurement of MAWT using a limited number of positions of the aortic wall systematically underestimate the MAWT value compared with the method that calculates MAWT from the vessel areas. Copyright (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To assess the agreement between three methods of calculation of mean aortic wall thickness (MAWT) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: High-resolution MRI of the infrarenal abdominal aorta was performed on 70 subjects with a history of coronary artery disease who were part of a multi-ethnic population-based sample. MAWT was calculated as the mean distance between the adventitial and luminal aortic boundaries using three different methods: average distance at four standard positions (AWT-4P), average distance at 100 automated positions (AWT-100P), and using a mathematical computation derived from the total vessel and luminal areas (AWT-VA). Bland-Altman plots and Passing-Bablok regression analyses were used to assess agreement between methods. RESULTS: Bland-Altman analyses demonstrated a positive bias of 3.02+/-7.31% between the AWT-VA and the AWT-4P methods, and of 1.76+/-6.82% between the AWT-100P and the AWT-4P methods. Passing-Bablok regression analyses demonstrated constant bias between the AWT-4P method and the other two methods. Proportional bias was, however, not evident among the three methods. CONCLUSION: MRI methods of measurement of MAWT using a limited number of positions of the aortic wall systematically underestimate the MAWT value compared with the method that calculates MAWT from the vessel areas. Copyright (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Justin L Grodin; Tiffany M Powell-Wiley; Colby R Ayers; Darpan S Kumar; Anand Rohatgi; Amit Khera; Darren K McGuire; James A de Lemos; Sandeep R Das Journal: Vasc Med Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.239
Authors: Lu Q Chen; Anand Rohatgi; Colby R Ayers; Sandeep R Das; Amit Khera; Jarett D Berry; Darren K McGuire; James A de Lemos Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2011-08-22 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Dhananjay Radhakrishnan Subramaniam; William A Stoddard; Kristian H Mortensen; Steffen Ringgaard; Christian Trolle; Claus H Gravholt; Ephraim J Gutmark; Goutham Mylavarapu; Philippe F Backeljauw; Iris Gutmark-Little Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Anita A Harteveld; Nerissa P Denswil; Wim Van Hecke; Hugo J Kuijf; Aryan Vink; Wim G M Spliet; Mat J Daemen; Peter R Luijten; Jaco J M Zwanenburg; Jeroen Hendrikse; Anja G van der Kolk Journal: Data Brief Date: 2018-05-02