Three-dimensional aortic geometry mapping via registration of non-gated contrast-enhanced or gated and respiratory-navigated MR angiographies.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The measurement of aortic dimensions and their evolution are key in the management of patients with aortic diseases. Manual assessment, the current guideline-recommended method and clinical standard, is subjective, poorly reproducible, and time-consuming, limiting the capacity to track aortic growth in everyday practice. Aortic geometry mapping (AGM) via image registration of serial computed tomography angiograms outperforms manual assessment, providing accurate and reproducible 3D maps of aortic diameter and growth rate. This observational study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of AGM on non-gated contrast-enhanced (CE-) and cardiac- and respiratory-gated (GN-) magnetic resonance angiographies (MRA). METHODS: Patients with thoracic aortic disease followed with serial CE-MRA (n = 30) or GN-MRA (n = 15) acquired at least 1 year apart were retrospectively and consecutively identified. Two independent observers measured aortic diameters and growth rates (GR) manually at several thoracic aorta reference levels and with AGM. Agreement between manual and AGM measurements and their inter-observer reproducibility were compared. Reproducibility for aortic diameter and GR maps assessed with AGM was obtained. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 3.8 ± 2.3 years for CE- and 2.7 ± 1.6 years for GN-MRA. AGM was feasible in the 93% of CE-MRA pairs and in the 100% of GN-MRA pairs. Manual and AGM diameters showed excellent agreement and inter-observer reproducibility (ICC>0.9) at all anatomical levels. Agreement between manual and AGM GR was more limited, both in the aortic root by GN-MRA (ICC=0.47) and in the thoracic aorta, where higher accuracy was obtained with GN- than with CE-MRA (ICC=0.55 vs 0.43). The inter-observer reproducibility of GR by AGM was superior compared to manual assessment, both with CE- (thoracic ICC= 0.91 vs 0.51) and GN-MRA (root ICC=0.84 vs 0.52; thoracic ICC=0.93 vs 0.60). AGM-based 3D aortic size and growth maps were highly reproducible (median ICC >0.9 for diameters and >0.80 for GR). CONCLUSION: Mapping aortic diameter and growth on MRA via 3D image registration is feasible, accurate and outperforms the current manual clinical standard. This technique could broaden the possibilities of clinical and research evaluation of patients with aortic thoracic diseases.