Reliability of non-contrast magnetic resonance angiography-derived aortic diameters in Marfan patients: comparison of inner vs. outer vessel wall measurements.

Aortic diameter measurements play a crucial role for the indication of aortic root surgery in Marfan patients. However, for magnetic resonance angiography (MRA)-derived measurements, there is no consensus on whether the aortic wall should be included or excluded in the aortic diameter. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the reliability of non-contrast bright blood MRA aortic inner-to-inner and outer-to-outer edge measurements in patients with Marfan syndrome. Forty Marfan patients underwent ECG-gated balanced steady-state free-precession MRA of the aorta at 1.5 T. Two readers independently performed inner and outer measurements at different aortic levels. They rated the image quality of the delineation of both inner and outer vessel wall edges on a four-point scale. MRA-derived diameters of the sinuses of Valsalva were compared with echocardiography-derived diameters. Aortic vessel wall delineation score was rated higher at all levels for inner than for outer vessel walls (p < 0.001). Inter- and intraobserver variances of aortic measurements were smaller for inner-to-inner measurements at the sinuses of Valsalva, sinotubular junction and ascending aorta (p < 0.03). There was a difference of 1.1 ± 2.3 mm for inner MRA measurements (p = 0.014) and 6.9 ± 3.1 mm for outer MRA measurements (p < 0.001) when compared to echocardiographic leading-edge measurements. Inner-to-inner vessel wall diameter measurements in non-contrast bright blood MRA provide more reliable diameters when compared to outer-to-outer vessel wall measurements of the aortic root. Therefore, we propose to rely on inner rather than outer aortic wall measurements in non-contrast-MRA when monitoring aortic diameters in patients with Marfan syndrome.

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

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.