Skip to main content

Comparison of great artery dimensions in 3-D dual-phase SSFP, compared with 3D CE-MRA and phase-contrast imaging (magnitude image)

Background

The dimensions of great vessels are measured in different methods in different institutes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefits of 3D dual phase steady-state free-precession(3D-DP SSFP)for measuring great arteries dimension, compared with 3D contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (3D CE-MRA) and 2D phase contrast imaging (Magnitude image) (2DPC-MI), in order to find which was the most suitable and reproducible technique for follow-up.

Methods

29 patients with repaired Tetralogy of Fallot or complete transposition of the great arteries after arterial switch operation (mean age 6.5yrs; range 6m to 25yrs) were included in the study. Cross-sectional diameter and area measurements were taken of the ascending aorta (Ao), main pulmonary (MPA) and branch pulmonary arteries (BPA) by using 3D DP SSFP, 3D CE-MRA and magnitude image of 2DPC-MI. Image quality was scored by a five-point scale (0 = invisible to 4 = excellent). Statistical comparison between 3D DP SSFP and other two techniques (2DPC-MI and 3D CE-MRA) was performed by using paired-t tests and Intraclass correlation coefficient.

Results

All great artery cross-sectional measurements were significantly (P < 0.001) greater in systole than in diastole. Measurements (diameter and area) of great arteries were greatest for 2DPC-MI, followed by 3D SSFP in systole and 3D CE-MRA, and smallest for 3D DP SSFP in diastole. There was no significant difference of aortic measurements between 3D DP SSFP in systole and 3D CE-MRA, but significance was observed between 3D DP SSFP in systole and 2D PC-MI (P < 0.05). The measurements of MPA and BPA showed no significant difference for 3D DP SSFP in systole compared to other two techniques. Intra-observer agreement of aortic measurements was uniformly >0.95, with 2DPC-MI being the best, followed closely by 3D DP SSFP in systole, and 3D CE-MRA being the worst. The average image quality of 3D DP SSFP and 2DPC-MI were ≥3. But the image quality was significantly poorer for 3D CE-MRA compared to other two techniques (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

All Ao and PA cross-sectional measurements were significantly (P < 0.001) greater in systole than in diastole. Measurements of Ao and PA were greatest for 2DPC-MI, followed by 3D SSFP in systole and 3D CE-MRA, and smallest for 3D DP SSFP in diastole. There was no significant difference of aortic measurements between 3D DP SSFP in systole and 3D CE-MRA, but significance was observed between 3D DP SSFP in systole and 2D PC-MI (P < 0.05). The measurements of MPA and BPAs showed no significant difference for 3D DP SSFP in systole compared to other two techniques. Intra-observer agreement of Ao measurements was uniformly >0.95, with 2D PC-MI being the best, followed closely by 3D DP SSFP in systole, and 3D CE-MRA being the worst. The image quality of 3D DP SSFP and 2D PC-MI scored≥3. But the image quality was significantly poorer for 3D CE-MRA compared to other two techniques (P < 0.001).

Funding

The first author recieved an educational grant from Philips Healthcare.

figure1

Figure 1

figure2

Figure 2

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Srinivas Ananth Narayan.

Rights and permissions

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sun, A., Narayan, S.A., Greil, G.F. et al. Comparison of great artery dimensions in 3-D dual-phase SSFP, compared with 3D CE-MRA and phase-contrast imaging (magnitude image). J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 17, P44 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429X-17-S1-P44

Download citation

Keywords

  • Image Quality
  • Magnetic Resonance Angiography
  • Great Artery
  • Arterial Switch Operation
  • Magnitude Image