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 postprocess, and shows very good interobserver correlation. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
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 postprocess, and shows very good interobserver correlation. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Jian Xu; Kelly Anne McGorty; Ruth P Lim; Mary Bruno; James S Babb; Monvadi B Srichai; Daniel Kim; Daniel K Sodickson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Harald Kramer; Val M Runge; John N Morelli; Kenneth D Williams; L Gill Naul; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Bernd J Wintersperger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-04-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Barbara E U Burkhardt; Nicholas K Brown; Jaclyn E Carberry; Marí Nieves Velasco Forte; Nicholas Byrne; Gerald Greil; Tarique Hussain; Animesh Tandon Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-06-15 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Zhehao Hu; Anthony G Christodoulou; Nan Wang; Jaime L Shaw; Shlee S Song; Marcel M Maya; Mariko L Ishimori; Lindsy J Forbess; Jiayu Xiao; Xiaoming Bi; Fei Han; Debiao Li; Zhaoyang Fan Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Nadine Kawel-Boehm; Scott J Hetzel; Bharath Ambale-Venkatesh; Gabriella Captur; Christopher J Francois; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Michael Salerno; Shawn D Teague; Emanuela Valsangiacomo-Buechel; Rob J van der Geest; David A Bluemke Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 5.364