Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Philips GmbH, Hamburg, Germany.
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021 Jan;37(1):315-329. doi: 10.1007/s10554-020-01979-2. Epub 2020 Aug 27.
To compare a novel Compressed SENSE accelerated ECG- and respiratory-triggered flow-independent 3D isotropic Relaxation-Enhanced Angiography without Contrast and Triggering (modified REACT) with standard non-ECG-triggered 3D contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) for imaging of the thoracic aorta in patients with connective tissue diseases (CTD) or other aortic diseases using manual and semiautomatic measurement approaches. This retrospective, single-center analysis of 30 patients (June-December 2018) was conducted by two radiologists, who independently measured aortic diameters on modified REACT and CE-MRA using manual (Multiplanar-Reconstruction) and semiautomatic (Advanced Vessel Analysis) measurement tools on seven levels (inner edge): Aortic annulus and sinus, sinotubular junction, mid- and high-ascending aorta, aortic isthmus, and descending aorta. Bland-Altman analysis was conducted to evaluate differences between the mean values of aortic width and ICCs were calculated to assess interobserver agreement. For each level, image quality was evaluated on a four-point scale in consensus with Wilcoxon matched-pair test used to evaluate for differences between both MRA techniques. Additionally, evaluation time for each measurement technique was noted, which was compared applying one-way ANOVA. When comparing both imaging and measurement methods, CE-MRA (mean difference 0.24 ± 0.27 mm) and the AVA-tool (- 0.21 ± 0.15 mm) yielded higher differences compared to modified REACT (- 0.11 ± 0.11 mm) and the MPR-tool (0.07 ± 0.21 mm) for all measurement levels combined without yielding clinical significance. There was an excellent interobserver agreement between modified REACT and CE-MRA using both tools of measurement (ICC > 0.9). Modified REACT (average acquisition time 06:34 ± 01:36 min) provided better image quality from aortic annulus to mid-ascending aorta (p < 0.05), whereas at distal measurement levels, no significant differences were noted. Regarding time requirement, no statistical significance was found between both measurement techniques (p = 0.08). As a novel non-CE-MRA technique, modified REACT allows for fast imaging of the thoracic aorta with higher image quality in the proximal aorta than CE-MRA enabling a reliable measurement of vessel dimensions without the need for contrast agent. Thus, it represents a clinically suitable alternative for patients requiring repetitive imaging. Manual and semiautomatic measurement approaches provided comparable results without significant difference in time need.
比较一种新型的压缩感应加速心电图和呼吸触发的非对比和触发的独立 3D 各向同性弛豫增强血管造影(改良 REACT)与标准非心电图触发的 3D 对比增强磁共振血管造影(CE-MRA),用于成像患有结缔组织疾病(CTD)或其他主动脉疾病的患者的胸主动脉。这项回顾性、单中心研究纳入了 30 名患者(2018 年 6 月至 12 月),由两位放射科医生进行,他们使用手动(多平面重建)和半自动(高级血管分析)测量工具,在七个层面(内缘)上独立测量改良 REACT 和 CE-MRA 上的主动脉直径:主动脉瓣环和窦,窦管交界处,升主动脉中、高段,主动脉峡部和降主动脉。进行 Bland-Altman 分析以评估主动脉宽度平均值之间的差异,并计算 ICC 以评估观察者间的一致性。对于每个层面,使用 Wilcoxon 匹配对检验进行共识评估,以评估两种 MRA 技术之间的差异,对图像质量进行四点量表评估。此外,还记录了每种测量技术的评估时间,并通过单向方差分析进行比较。在比较两种成像和测量方法时,CE-MRA(平均差异 0.24±0.27mm)和 AVA 工具(-0.21±0.15mm)与改良 REACT(-0.11±0.11mm)和 MPR 工具(0.07±0.21mm)相比,所有测量层面的差异均较高,但无临床意义。改良 REACT 和 CE-MRA 两种测量工具的观察者间一致性均很好(ICC>0.9)。改良 REACT(平均采集时间 06:34±01:36min)从主动脉瓣环到升主动脉中段提供了更好的图像质量(p<0.05),而在远端测量层面,无显著差异。关于时间要求,两种测量技术之间无统计学意义(p=0.08)。作为一种新型的非 CE-MRA 技术,改良 REACT 允许快速成像胸主动脉,在近端主动脉中提供比 CE-MRA 更高的图像质量,能够可靠地测量血管尺寸,而无需造影剂。因此,对于需要重复成像的患者,它是一种有临床应用价值的替代方法。手动和半自动测量方法提供了可比的结果,在时间需求方面没有显著差异。