Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Musculoskeletal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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 17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. 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–e129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 15:651–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 219:828–834

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 23:747–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 167:190–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 248:799–806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 81:762–766

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 118:785–791

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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  Google Scholar 

  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 20:1311–1320

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 27:504–509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Holloway BJ, Rosewarne D, Jones RG (2011) Imaging of thoracic aortic disease. Br J Radiol 84:S338–S354

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 188:522–528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 158:353–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 55:186–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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 182:593–597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Peter Bannas. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: prospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Bannas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Veldhoen, S., Behzadi, C., Derlin, T. et al. Exact monitoring of aortic diameters in Marfan patients without gadolinium contrast: intraindividual comparison of 2D SSFP imaging with 3D CE-MRA and echocardiography. Eur Radiol 25, 872–882 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3457-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3457-6

Keywords

Navigation