nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.03.2015 | Musculoskeletal

Exact monitoring of aortic diameters in Marfan patients without gadolinium contrast: intraindividual comparison of 2D SSFP imaging with 3D CE-MRA and echocardiography

verfasst von: Simon Veldhoen, Cyrus Behzadi, Thorsten Derlin, Meike Rybczinsky, Yskert von Kodolitsch, Sara Sheikhzadeh, Frank Oliver Henes, Thorsten Alexander Bley, Gerhard Adam, Peter Bannas

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 3/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To assess whether ECG-gated non-contrast 2D steady-state free precession (SSFP) imaging allows for exact monitoring of aortic diameters in Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients using non-ECG-gated contrast-enhanced 3D magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) and echocardiography for intraindividual comparison.

Methods

Non-ECG-gated CE-MRA and ECG-gated non-contrast SSFP at 1.5 T were prospectively performed in 50 patients. Two readers measured aortic diameters on para-sagittal images identically aligned with the aortic arch at the sinuses of Valsalva, sinotubular junction, ascending/descending aorta and aortic arch. Image quality was assessed on a three-point scale. Aortic root diameters acquired by echocardiography were used as reference.

Results

Intra- and interobserver variances were smaller for SSFP at the sinuses of Valsalva (p = 0.002; p = 0.002) and sinotubular junction (p = 0.014; p = 0.043). Image quality was better in SSFP than in CE-MRA at the sinuses of Valsalva (p < 0.0001), sinotubular junction (p < 0.0001) and ascending aorta (p = 0.02). CE-MRA yielded higher diameters than SSFP at the sinuses of Valsalva (mean bias, 2.5 mm; p < 0.0001), and comparison with echocardiography confirmed a higher bias for CE-MRA (7.2 ± 3.4 mm vs. SSFP, 4.7 ± 2.6 mm).

Conclusion

ECG-gated non-contrast 2D SSFP imaging provides superior image quality with higher validity compared to non-ECG-gated contrast-enhanced 3D imaging. Since CE-MRA requires contrast agents with potential adverse effects, non-contrast SSFP imaging is an appropriate alternative for exact and riskless aortic monitoring of MFS patients.

Key Points

• ECG-gated 2D SSFP imaging provides better image quality than non-ECG-gated contrast-enhanced 3D MRA

• ECG-gated 2D SSFP imaging provides higher reproducibility than non-ECG-gated contrast-enhanced 3D MRA

• 2D SSFP imaging provides higher validity than 3D MRA using echocardiography as reference

• ECG-gated non-contrast 2D SFFP imaging allows for riskless monitoring of Marfan patients

Loeys BL, Dietz HC, Braverman AC et al (2010) The revised Ghent nosology for the Marfan syndrome. J Med Genet 47:476–485CrossRefPubMed

Murdoch JL, Walker BA, Halpern BL et al (1972) Life expectancy and causes of death in the Marfan syndrome. N Engl J Med 286:804–808CrossRefPubMed

Silverman DI, Burton KJ, Gray J et al (1995) Life expectancy in the Marfan syndrome. Am J Cardiol 75:157–160CrossRefPubMed

von Kodolitsch Y, Rybczynski M, Detter C, Robinson PN (2008) Diagnosis and management of Marfan syndrome. Futur Cardiol 4:85–96CrossRef

Gott VL, Greene PS, Alejo DE et al (1999) Replacement of the aortic root in patients with Marfan's syndrome. N Engl J Med 340:1307–1313CrossRefPubMed

Bernhardt AMJ, Treede H, Rybczynski M et al (2011) Comparison of aortic root replacement in patients with Marfan syndrome. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 40:1052–1057PubMed

Hiratzka LF, Bakris GL, Beckman JA et al (2010) 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease. JAC 55:e27–e129

von Kodolitsch Y, Robinson PN, Berger J (2014) When should surgery be performed in Marfan syndrome and other connective tissue disorders to protect against type A dissection? In: Bonser RS, Pagano D, Haverich A, Mascaro J (eds) Controversies in aortic dissection and aneurysmal disease. Springer, New York, p 17CrossRef

Hiratzka LF, Bakris GL, Beckman JA et al (2010) 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society for Vascular Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol 55:e27–e129CrossRefPubMed

10.

von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff F, Gruettner H, Trauzeddel RF et al (2014) Comparison of native high-resolution 3D and contrast-enhanced MR angiography for assessing the thoracic aorta. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 15:651–658CrossRef

11.

Russo V, Renzulli M, La Palombara C, Fattori R (2006) Congenital diseases of the thoracic aorta. Role of MRI and MRA. Eur Radiol 16:676–684CrossRefPubMed

12.

François CJ, Hartung MP, Reeder SB et al (2013) MRI for acute chest pain: current state of the art. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:1290–1300CrossRefPubMed

13.

Carr JC, Simonetti O, Bundy J et al (2001) Cine MR angiography of the heart with segmented true fast imaging with steady-state precession. Radiology 219:828–834CrossRefPubMed

14.

Gebker R, Gomaa O, Schnackenburg B et al (2007) Comparison of different MRI techniques for the assessment of thoracic aortic pathology: 3D contrast enhanced MR angiography, turbo spin echo and balanced steady state free precession. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 23:747–756CrossRefPubMed

15.

Bannas P, Groth M, Rybczynski M et al (2013) Assessment of aortic root dimensions in patients with suspected Marfan syndrome: intraindividual comparison of contrast-enhanced and non-contrast magnetic resonance angiography with echocardiography. Int J Cardiol 167:190–196CrossRefPubMed

16.

Wertman R, Altun E, Martin DR et al (2008) Risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: evaluation of gadolinium chelate contrast agents at four American universities. Radiology 248:799–806CrossRefPubMed

17.

Groth M, Henes FO, Müllerleile K et al (2012) Accuracy of thoracic aortic measurements assessed by contrast enhanced and unenhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol 81:762–766CrossRefPubMed

18.

Pearson GD, Devereux R, Loeys B et al (2008) Report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Marfan Foundation Working Group on research in Marfan syndrome and related disorders. Circulation 118:785–791CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

19.

Vriz O, Driussi C, Bettio M et al (2013) Aortic root dimensions and stiffness in healthy subjects. Am J Cardiol. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.05.068 PubMed

20.

Krishnam MS, Tomasian A, Malik S et al (2010) Image quality and diagnostic accuracy of unenhanced SSFP MR angiography compared with conventional contrast-enhanced MR angiography for the assessment of thoracic aortic diseases. Eur Radiol 20:1311–1320CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

21.

Amano Y, Takahama K, Kumita S (2008) Non-contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the thoracic aorta using cardiac and navigator-gated magnetization-prepared three-dimensional steady-state free precession. J Magn Reson Imaging 27:504–509CrossRefPubMed

22.

Holloway BJ, Rosewarne D, Jones RG (2011) Imaging of thoracic aortic disease. Br J Radiol 84:S338–S354CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

23.

Groves EM, Bireley W, Dill K et al (2007) Quantitative analysis of ECG-gated high-resolution contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the thoracic aorta. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:522–528CrossRefPubMed

24.

Rimoin DL, Pyeritz RE, Korf B (eds) (2013) Emery & Rimoin’s principles and practice of medical genetics. Academic, Oxford

25.

Broome DR (2008) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis associated with gadolinium based contrast agents: a summary of the medical literature reporting. Eur J Radiol 66:230–234CrossRefPubMed

26.

Shellock FG, Spinazzi A (2008) MRI safety update 2008: part 1, MRI contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1129–1139CrossRefPubMed

27.

Koos R, Altiok E, Mahnken AH et al (2012) Evaluation of aortic root for definition of prosthesis size by magnetic resonance imaging and cardiac computed tomography: implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Int J Cardiol 158:353–358CrossRefPubMed

28.

Messika-Zeitoun D, Serfaty J-M, Brochet E et al (2010) Multimodal assessment of the aortic annulus diameter: implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 55:186–194CrossRefPubMed

29.

Muraru D, Maffessanti F, Kocabay G et al (2013) Ascending aorta diameters measured by echocardiography using both leading edge-to-leading edge and inner edge-to-inner edge conventions in healthy volunteers. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. doi:10.1093/ehjci/jet173

30.

Li AE, Kamel I, Rando F et al (2004) Using MRI to assess aortic wall thickness in the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis: distribution by race, sex, and age. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:593–597CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Exact monitoring of aortic diameters in Marfan patients without gadolinium contrast: intraindividual comparison of 2D SSFP imaging with 3D CE-MRA and echocardiography
verfasst von: Simon Veldhoen
Cyrus Behzadi
Thorsten Derlin
Meike Rybczinsky
Yskert von Kodolitsch
Sara Sheikhzadeh
Frank Oliver Henes
Thorsten Alexander Bley
Gerhard Adam
Peter Bannas
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2015
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3457-6

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Exact monitoring of aortic diameters in Marfan patients without gadolinium contrast: intraindividual comparison of 2D SSFP imaging with 3D CE-MRA and echocardiography