Radial self-navigated native magnetic resonance angiography in comparison to navigator-gated contrast-enhanced MRA of the entire thoracic aorta in an aortic patient collective

Table 3 Results for aortic image quality and artifact properties

b) Distribution of overall image quality
	Excellent %	Good %	Moderate %	Poor %
Ascending aorta
Radial MRA	48.4	35.5	12.9	3.2
CE-MRA	9.8	39.3	31.1	19.7
Aortic arch
Radial MRA	38.7	38.7	9.7	12.9
CE-MRA	4.9	39.3	45.9	9.8
Descending aorta
Radial MRA	60	23.3	13.3	3.3
CE-MRA	19.7	65.6	11.5	3.3

d) Artifact properties before and after stratification of the two MRA groups
	Native-SN-MRA OP yes n = 15	Native-SN-MRA OP no n = 16	CE-MRA OP yes n = 42	CE-MRA OP no n = 19	p (binary)	Risk difference (95% CI)	p (Mantel–Haenszel test)
Location
Ascending aorta	13 (87%)	13 (81%)	16 (38%)	14 (74%)	< 0.001	0.305 (0.097; 0.475)	0.008
Aortic arch	13 (87%)	11 (69%)	16 (38%)	11 (56%)	0.015	0.32 (0.099; 0.501)	0.008
Descending aorta	14 (93%)	11 (69%)	34 (81%)	18 (95%)	0.404	− 0.02 (− 0.19; 0.13)	0.791

e) Patients after aortic surgery
	Native-SN-MRA n = 15	CE-MRA n = 42	Risk difference (95% CI)	p
Location
Ascending aorta	13 (87%)	16 (38%)	0.486 (0.206; 0.669)	< 0.001
Aortic arch	13 (87%)	16 (38%)	0.486 (0.206; 0.669)	< 0.001
Descending aorta	14 (93%)	34 (81%)	0.124 (− 0.107; 0.281)	0.002

f) Overall image quality in patients with both MRA acquisitions
	Native-SN-MRA n = 10	CE-MRA n = 10	Risk difference (95% CI)	p
Location
Ascending aorta	8 (80%)	5 (50%)	0.3 (− 0.481; 0.313)	0.153
Aortic arch	8 (80%)	6 (60%)	0.2 (− 0.124; 0.624)	0.099
Descending aorta	9 (90%)	10 (100%)	− 0.1 (− 0.205; 0.538)	0.348

MRA MR angiography, CE-MRA contrast enhanced MRA, Native-SN-MRA 3D radial respiratory self-navigated non contrast-enhanced MRA, SD standard deviation, OP operation

ISSN: 1532-429X