OBJECTIVES: Bicuspid aortic valve patients can develop thoracic aortic aneurysms and therefore require serial imaging to monitor aortic growth. This study investigates the reliability of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CEMRA) volumetry compared with 2-dimensional diameter measurements to identify thoracic aortic aneurysm growth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, institutional review board-approved, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study was conducted on 20 bicuspid aortic valve patients (45 ± 8.9 years, 20% women) who underwent serial CEMRA with a minimum imaging follow-up of 11 months. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed at 1.5 T with electrocardiogram-gated, time-resolved CEMRA. Independent observers measured the diameter at the sinuses of Valsalva (SOVs) and mid ascending aorta (MAA) as well as ascending aorta volume between the aortic valve annulus and innominate branch. Intraobserver/interobserver coefficient of variation (COV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were computed to assess reliability. Growth rates were calculated and assessed by Student t test (P < 0.05, significant). The diameter of maximal growth (DMG), defined as the diameter at SOV or MAA with the faster growth rate, was recorded. RESULTS: The mean time of follow-up was 2.6 ± 0.82 years. The intraobserver COV was 0.01 for SOV, 0.02 for MAA, and 0.02 for volume (interobserver COV: 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, respectively). The ICC was 0.83 for SOV, 0.86 for MAA, 0.90 for DMG, and 0.95 for volume. Average aortic measurements at baseline and (follow-up) were 42 ± 3 mm (42 ± 3 mm, P = 0.11) at SOV, 46 ± 4 mm (47 ± 4 mm, P < 0.05) at MAA, and 130 ± 23 mL (144 ± 24 mL, P < 0.05). Average size changes were 0.2 ± 0.6 mm/y (1% ± 2%) at SOV, 0.5 ± 0.8 mm/y (1% ± 2%) at MAA, 0.7 ± 0.7 mm/y (2% ± 2%) at DMG, and 6 ± 3 mL/y (4% ± 3%) with volumetry. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional CEMRA volumetry exhibited a larger effect when examining percentage growth, a better ICC, and a marginally lower COV. Volumetry may be more sensitive to growth and possibly less affected by error than diameter measurements.
OBJECTIVES:Bicuspid aortic valvepatients can develop thoracic aortic aneurysms and therefore require serial imaging to monitor aortic growth. This study investigates the reliability of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CEMRA) volumetry compared with 2-dimensional diameter measurements to identify thoracic aortic aneurysm growth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, institutional review board-approved, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study was conducted on 20 bicuspid aortic valvepatients (45 ± 8.9 years, 20% women) who underwent serial CEMRA with a minimum imaging follow-up of 11 months. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed at 1.5 T with electrocardiogram-gated, time-resolved CEMRA. Independent observers measured the diameter at the sinuses of Valsalva (SOVs) and mid ascending aorta (MAA) as well as ascending aorta volume between the aortic valve annulus and innominate branch. Intraobserver/interobserver coefficient of variation (COV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were computed to assess reliability. Growth rates were calculated and assessed by Student t test (P < 0.05, significant). The diameter of maximal growth (DMG), defined as the diameter at SOV or MAA with the faster growth rate, was recorded. RESULTS: The mean time of follow-up was 2.6 ± 0.82 years. The intraobserver COV was 0.01 for SOV, 0.02 for MAA, and 0.02 for volume (interobserver COV: 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, respectively). The ICC was 0.83 for SOV, 0.86 for MAA, 0.90 for DMG, and 0.95 for volume. Average aortic measurements at baseline and (follow-up) were 42 ± 3 mm (42 ± 3 mm, P = 0.11) at SOV, 46 ± 4 mm (47 ± 4 mm, P < 0.05) at MAA, and 130 ± 23 mL (144 ± 24 mL, P < 0.05). Average size changes were 0.2 ± 0.6 mm/y (1% ± 2%) at SOV, 0.5 ± 0.8 mm/y (1% ± 2%) at MAA, 0.7 ± 0.7 mm/y (2% ± 2%) at DMG, and 6 ± 3 mL/y (4% ± 3%) with volumetry. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional CEMRA volumetry exhibited a larger effect when examining percentage growth, a better ICC, and a marginally lower COV. Volumetry may be more sensitive to growth and possibly less affected by error than diameter measurements.
Authors: Claude Kauffmann; An Tang; Eric Therasse; Marie-France Giroux; Stephane Elkouri; Philippe Melanson; Bertrand Melanson; Vincent L Oliva; Gilles Soulez Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-05-20 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Federico M Asch; Eugene Yuriditsky; Siddharth K Prakash; Mary J Roman; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Gaby Weissman; Wm Guy Weigold; Shaine A Morris; William J Ravekes; Kathryn W Holmes; Michael Silberbach; Rita K Milewski; Barbara L Kroner; Ryan Whitworth; Kim A Eagle; Richard B Devereux; Neil J Weissman Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-02-17
Authors: Jasper W van Keulen; Joffrey van Prehn; Mathias Prokop; Frans L Moll; Joost A van Herwaarden Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: L K Bickerstaff; P C Pairolero; L H Hollier; L J Melton; H J Van Peenen; K J Cherry; J W Joyce; J T Lie Journal: Surgery Date: 1982-12 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Ozair Rahman; Michael Scott; Emilie Bollache; Kenichiro Suwa; Jeremy Collins; James Carr; Paul Fedak; Patrick McCarthy; Chris Malaisrie; Alex J Barker; Michael Markl Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Athanassios Pirentis; Paris D Kalogerakos; Hamid Mojibian; John A Elefteriades; George Lazopoulos; Yannis Papaharilaou Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Bouke P Adriaans; Joachim E Wildberger; Jos J M Westenberg; Hildo J Lamb; Simon Schalla Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Pim van Ooij; Emile S Farag; Carmen P S Blanken; Aart J Nederveen; Maarten Groenink; R Nils Planken; S Matthijs Boekholdt Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Alex Bratt; Daniel J Blezek; William J Ryan; Kenneth A Philbrick; Prabhakar Rajiah; Yasmeen K Tandon; Lara A Walkoff; Jason C Cai; Emily N Sheedy; Panagiotis Korfiatis; Eric E Williamson; Bradley J Erickson; Jeremy D Collins Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 4.903
Authors: Pim van Ooij; Michael Markl; Jeremy D Collins; James C Carr; Cynthia Rigsby; Robert O Bonow; S Chris Malaisrie; Patrick M McCarthy; Paul W M Fedak; Alex J Barker Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-09-13 Impact factor: 5.501