Limits...
Comparison of great artery dimensions in 3-D dual-phase SSFP, compared with 3D CE-MRA and phase-contrast imaging (magnitude image)

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED EXCERPT
Please rate it.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefits of 3D dual phase steady-state free-precession(3D-DP SSFP)for measuring great arteries dimension, compared with 3D contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (3D CE-MRA) and 2D phase contrast imaging (Magnitude image) (2DPC-MI), in order to find which was the most suitable and reproducible technique for follow-up. 29 patients with repaired Tetralogy of Fallot or complete transposition of the great arteries after arterial switch operation (mean age 6.5yrs; range 6m to 25yrs) were included in the study... Measurements (diameter and area) of great arteries were greatest for 2DPC-MI, followed by 3D SSFP in systole and 3D CE-MRA, and smallest for 3D DP SSFP in diastole... There was no significant difference of aortic measurements between 3D DP SSFP in systole and 3D CE-MRA, but significance was observed between 3D DP SSFP in systole and 2D PC-MI (P < 0.05)... The measurements of MPA and BPA showed no significant difference for 3D DP SSFP in systole compared to other two techniques... Intra-observer agreement of aortic measurements was uniformly >0.95, with 2DPC-MI being the best, followed closely by 3D DP SSFP in systole, and 3D CE-MRA being the worst... The average image quality of 3D DP SSFP and 2DPC-MI were ≥3... But the image quality was significantly poorer for 3D CE-MRA compared to other two techniques (P < 0.001)... All Ao and PA cross-sectional measurements were significantly (P < 0.001) greater in systole than in diastole... Measurements of Ao and PA were greatest for 2DPC-MI, followed by 3D SSFP in systole and 3D CE-MRA, and smallest for 3D DP SSFP in diastole... There was no significant difference of aortic measurements between 3D DP SSFP in systole and 3D CE-MRA, but significance was observed between 3D DP SSFP in systole and 2D PC-MI (P < 0.05)... The measurements of MPA and BPAs showed no significant difference for 3D DP SSFP in systole compared to other two techniques... Intra-observer agreement of Ao measurements was uniformly >0.95, with 2D PC-MI being the best, followed closely by 3D DP SSFP in systole, and 3D CE-MRA being the worst... The image quality of 3D DP SSFP and 2D PC-MI scored≥3... But the image quality was significantly poorer for 3D CE-MRA compared to other two techniques (P < 0.001).

No MeSH data available.


© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4328921&req=5


Comparison of great artery dimensions in 3-D dual-phase SSFP, compared with 3D CE-MRA and phase-contrast imaging (magnitude image)
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4328921&req=5

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED EXCERPT
Please rate it.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefits of 3D dual phase steady-state free-precession(3D-DP SSFP)for measuring great arteries dimension, compared with 3D contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (3D CE-MRA) and 2D phase contrast imaging (Magnitude image) (2DPC-MI), in order to find which was the most suitable and reproducible technique for follow-up. 29 patients with repaired Tetralogy of Fallot or complete transposition of the great arteries after arterial switch operation (mean age 6.5yrs; range 6m to 25yrs) were included in the study... Measurements (diameter and area) of great arteries were greatest for 2DPC-MI, followed by 3D SSFP in systole and 3D CE-MRA, and smallest for 3D DP SSFP in diastole... There was no significant difference of aortic measurements between 3D DP SSFP in systole and 3D CE-MRA, but significance was observed between 3D DP SSFP in systole and 2D PC-MI (P < 0.05)... The measurements of MPA and BPA showed no significant difference for 3D DP SSFP in systole compared to other two techniques... Intra-observer agreement of aortic measurements was uniformly >0.95, with 2DPC-MI being the best, followed closely by 3D DP SSFP in systole, and 3D CE-MRA being the worst... The average image quality of 3D DP SSFP and 2DPC-MI were ≥3... But the image quality was significantly poorer for 3D CE-MRA compared to other two techniques (P < 0.001)... All Ao and PA cross-sectional measurements were significantly (P < 0.001) greater in systole than in diastole... Measurements of Ao and PA were greatest for 2DPC-MI, followed by 3D SSFP in systole and 3D CE-MRA, and smallest for 3D DP SSFP in diastole... There was no significant difference of aortic measurements between 3D DP SSFP in systole and 3D CE-MRA, but significance was observed between 3D DP SSFP in systole and 2D PC-MI (P < 0.05)... The measurements of MPA and BPAs showed no significant difference for 3D DP SSFP in systole compared to other two techniques... Intra-observer agreement of Ao measurements was uniformly >0.95, with 2D PC-MI being the best, followed closely by 3D DP SSFP in systole, and 3D CE-MRA being the worst... The image quality of 3D DP SSFP and 2D PC-MI scored≥3... But the image quality was significantly poorer for 3D CE-MRA compared to other two techniques (P < 0.001).

No MeSH data available.