Comparative evaluation of TEE, conventional MRI and contrast-enhanced 3D breath-hold MRA in the post-operative follow-up of dissecting aneurysms.

PURPOSE

To verify the diagnostic potentialities of conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), breath-hold 3D contrast enhanced MR angiography (C3D MRA) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in patients surgically treated for type A aortic dissection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-nine patients (21 males and 8 females), surgically treated for type A aortic dissection, were evaluated with MRI using a 1.5 T (GE Horizon Echospeed 8.2) with standard gated SE sequences and breath-hold 3D fast SPGR after intravenous Gd injection (0.2 mmol/kg). 3D MIP reconstruction was obtained. TEE evaluation was performed with a HP 2000 system and a biplane 5 MHz probe. The sizes of aortic root, distal anastomosis, descending aorta and periprosthetic thickening were measured. Regional false lumen and aortic branch involvement were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Concordance among TEE, conventional MRI and C3D MRA was observed in the evaluation of aortic root (MRI vs. C3D MRA r = 0.93; MRI vs. TEE r = 0.84; C3D MRA vs. TEE r = 0.84) and descending aorta (r = 0.94, 0.91 and 0.92, respectively). The interobserver variability was also very low. Inadequate agreement was observed for distal anastomosis. C3D MRA was inadequate in the evaluation of periprosthetic thickening; r = 0.73 was obtained between MRI and TEE. For qualitative data: TEE was inadequate in the evaluation of the abdominal aorta and branches. C3D MRA depicted supra-aortic vessel involvement in more cases than the other techniques.

CONCLUSION

C3D MRA is a fast and accurate technique in the evaluation of the endoluminal alterations and involvement of the aortic branches. Conventional MRI allows a direct evaluation of the aortic wall and periaortic tissue. TEE is less accurate in the evaluation of aortic branches and abdominal aorta.