Journal of computer assisted tomography · 2019
Highly Accelerated Breath-Hold Noncontrast Electrocardiographically- and Pulse-Gated Balanced Steady-State Free Precession Magnetic Resonance Angiography of the Thoracic Aorta: Comparison With Electrocardiographically-Gated Computed Tomographic Angiography.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lim Ruth P, Singh Susan G, Hornsey Emma, Kearney Leighton, Churilov Leonid, Storey Pippa, Begbie Mark, Shoobridge Jennifer, Xu Jian, Rayner Melanie, Matalanis George, Smith Gerard
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate agreement of measured thoracic aortic caliber in patients with aortic disease, using electrocardiographically-(ECG) and pulse-gated breath-hold noncontrast balanced steady-state free precession MRA (ECG-MRA, P-MRA) at 1.5 T, compared with ECG-gated computed tomographic angiography (CTA).
METHODS: Thirty-one patients underwent ECG-MRA, P-MRA, and CTA. Two readers independently measured aortic caliber in 7 segments, with agreement between techniques and readers evaluated. Image quality was qualitatively assessed.
RESULTS: There was overall excellent agreement among ECG-MRA, P-MRA, and CTA for measured aortic caliber (Lin's concordance correlation coefficient ≥0.94, all comparisons); however, lower concordance was noted at the annulus (Lin's concordance correlation coefficient <0.6) at segmental assessment. There was excellent interreader agreement for aortic caliber for all 3 techniques (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.94). Image quality was poorer for both MRA techniques compared with CTA, particularly at the aortic root.
CONCLUSIONS: Electrocardiographically-gated MRA and P-MRA at 1.5 T achieve comparable thoracic aortic measurements to gated CTA in clinical patients, despite inferior image quality.
METHODS: Thirty-one patients underwent ECG-MRA, P-MRA, and CTA. Two readers independently measured aortic caliber in 7 segments, with agreement between techniques and readers evaluated. Image quality was qualitatively assessed.
RESULTS: There was overall excellent agreement among ECG-MRA, P-MRA, and CTA for measured aortic caliber (Lin's concordance correlation coefficient ≥0.94, all comparisons); however, lower concordance was noted at the annulus (Lin's concordance correlation coefficient <0.6) at segmental assessment. There was excellent interreader agreement for aortic caliber for all 3 techniques (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.94). Image quality was poorer for both MRA techniques compared with CTA, particularly at the aortic root.
CONCLUSIONS: Electrocardiographically-gated MRA and P-MRA at 1.5 T achieve comparable thoracic aortic measurements to gated CTA in clinical patients, despite inferior image quality.