Validation of thoracic aortic dimensions on ECG-triggered SSFP as alternative to contrast-enhanced MRA.

OBJECTIVES: Assessment of thoracic aortic dimensions with non-ECG-triggered contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) is accompanied with motion artefacts and requires gadolinium. To avoid both motion artefacts and gadolinium administration, we evaluated the similarity and reproducibility of dimensions measured on ECG-triggered, balanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) MRA as alternative to CE-MRA. METHODS: All patients, with varying medical conditions, referred for thoracic aortic examination between September 2016 and March 2018, who underwent non-ECG-triggered CE-MRA and SSFP-MRA (1.5 T) were retrospectively included (n = 30). Aortic dimensions were measured after double-oblique multiplanar reconstruction by two observers at nine landmarks predefined by literature guidelines. Image quality was scored at the sinus of Valsalva, mid-ascending aorta and mid-descending aorta by semi-automatically assessing the vessel sharpness. RESULTS: Aortic dimensions showed high agreement between non-ECG-triggered CE-MRA and SSFP-MRA (r = 0.99, p < 0.05) without overestimation or underestimation of aortic dimensions in SSFP-MRA (mean difference, 0.1 mm; limits of agreement, - 1.9 mm and 1.9 mm). Intra- and inter-observer variabilities were significantly smaller with SSFP-MRA for the sinus of Valsalva and sinotubular junction. Image quality of the sinus of Valsalva was significantly better with SSFP-MRA, as fewer images were of impaired quality (3/30) than in CE-MRA (21/30). Reproducibility of dimensions was significantly better in images scored as good quality compared to impaired quality in both sequences. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracic aortic dimensions measured on SSFP-MRA and non-ECG-triggered CE-MRA were similar. As expected, SSFP-MRA showed better reproducibility close to the aortic root because of lesser motion artefacts, making it a feasible non-contrast imaging alternative. KEY POINTS: • SSFP-MRA provides similar dimensions as non-ECG-triggered CE-MRA. • Intra- and inter-observer reproducibilities improve for the sinus of Valsalva and sinotubular junction with SSFP-MRA. • ECG-triggered SSFP-MRA shows better image quality for landmarks close to the aortic root in the absence of cardiac motion.

Correction to: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance native T2 and T2* quantitative values for cardiomyopathies and heart transplantations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance native T2 and T2* quantitative values for cardiomyopathies and heart transplantations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical application of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) T2 and T2* mapping is currently limited as ranges for healthy and cardiac diseases are poorly defined. In this meta-analysis we aimed to determine the weighted mean of T2 and T2* mapping values in patients with myocardial infarction (MI), heart transplantation, non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (NICM) and hypertension, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) of each population with healthy controls. Additionally, the variation of mapping outcomes between studies was investigated. METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were followed after literature searches on PubMed and Embase. Studies reporting CMR T2 or T2* values measured in patients were included. The SMD was calculated using a random effects model and a meta-regression analysis was performed for populations with sufficient published data. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four studies, including 13,804 patient and 4392 control measurements, were included. T2 values were higher in patients with MI, heart transplantation, sarcoidosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, amyloidosis, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and myocarditis (SMD of 2.17, 1.05, 0.87, 1.39, 1.62, 1.95, 1.90 and 1.33, respectively, P <  0.01) compared with controls. T2 values in iron overload patients (SMD = - 0.54, P = 0.30) and Anderson-Fabry disease patients (SMD = 0.52, P = 0.17) did both not differ from controls. T2* values were lower in patients with MI and iron overload (SMD of - 1.99 and - 2.39, respectively, P <  0.01) compared with controls. T2* values in HCM patients (SMD = - 0.61, P = 0.22), DCM patients (SMD = - 0.54, P = 0.06) and hypertension patients (SMD = - 1.46, P = 0.10) did not differ from controls. Multiple CMR acquisition and patient demographic factors were assessed as significant covariates, thereby influencing the mapping outcomes and causing variation between studies. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical utility of T2 and T2* mapping to distinguish affected myocardium in patients with cardiomyopathies or heart transplantation from healthy myocardium seemed to be confirmed based on this meta-analysis. Nevertheless, variation of mapping values between studies complicates comparison with external values and therefore require local healthy reference values to clinically interpret quantitative values. Furthermore, disease differentiation seems limited, since changes in T2 and T2* values of most cardiomyopathies are similar.