AIM:To compare electrocardiography (ECG)-gated computed tomography angiography (CTA) with ECG-gated magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) for assessment of the left atrium (LA) and pulmonary veins (PVs).
MATERIAL AND METHODS:Twenty-nine consecutive patients who underwent both cardiac CTA and MRA were evaluated. Contrast-enhanced CTA was performed with prospective ECG-gating using a 320 detector row CT system. Contrast-enhanced MRA was performed with prospective ECG-gating using a 1.5 T MRI system equipped with a 32 channel cardiac coil. MRA was acquired during free-breathing with a navigator-gated inversion-recovery prepared steady-state free precession sequence. Two readers independently assessed the CTA and MRA images for vascular definition of the PVs (from 0, not visualized, to 4, excellent definition) and ostial PV diameters. Variants of LA anatomy were assessed in consensus.
RESULTS:CTA was successfully performed in all patients with a mean radiation exposure of 5.1 ± 2.2 mSv. MRA was successfully performed in 27 of 29 patients (93 %). Visual definition of PVs was rated significantly higher on CTA compared to MRA (p < 0.0001; reader 1: excellent/good ratings of CTA versus MRA: 100% versus 86%; reader 2: excellent/good ratings of CTA versus MRA: 99% versus 89%). Assessment of ostial PV diameters showed good correlation between CTA and MRA (reader 1: Pearson r = 0.91; reader 2: Pearson r = 0.82). Moreover, agreement between both imaging methods for evaluation of variants of LA anatomy was high (agreement rate of 95% (95% CI: 92-99%).
CONCLUSION:ECG-gated CTA provides higher image quality compared to ECG-gated MRA. Nevertheless, both CTA and MRA provided similar information of LA anatomy and ostial PV diameters.
-
【ECG-gated imaging of the left atrium and pulmonary veins: Intra-individual comparison of CTA and MRA.].
【左心房和肺静脉的ECG门控成像：CTA和MRA的个体内比较。】
复制标题
收藏
DOI：10.1016/j.crad.2013.05.006文章类型：杂志文章
复制DOI
译文
目的：比较心电图（ECG）门控计算机断层扫描血管造影（CTA）与心电图门控磁共振血管造影（MRA），以评估左心房（LA）和肺静脉（PVs）。
材料与方法：对连续接受心脏CTA和MRA的29例患者进行了评估。使用320排探测器CT系统，通过预期的ECG门控进行对比增强的CTA。使用配备32通道心脏线圈的1.5 T MRI系统，对前瞻性ECG门控进行对比增强的MRA。 MRA是在自由呼吸过程中通过导航器选通的反向恢复准备的稳态自由进动序列获得的。两名读者分别评估了CTA和MRA图像的PV的血管定义（从0，未可视化，到4，极佳的清晰度）和口腔PV直径。对LA解剖结构的变异进行了共识性评估。
结果：所有患者均成功进行了CTA，平均放射线暴露为5.1±2.2 mSv。在29例患者中有27例（93％）成功进行了MRA。与MRA相比，PV的视觉清晰度在CTA上的评级显着更高（p <0.0001；阅读器1：CTA与MRA的优异/良好评级：100％对86％；阅读器2：CTA与MRA的优异/良好评级：99％则为89％）。眼部PV直径的评估显示CTA与MRA之间具有良好的相关性（阅读器1：Pearson r = 0.91；阅读器2：Pearson r = 0.82）。此外，两种成像方法之间用于评估LA解剖结构变异的一致性很高（一致率为95％（95％CI：92-99％））。
结论：与ECG门控MRA相比，ECG门控CTA可提供更高的图像质量。尽管如此，CTA和MRA均提供了类似的LA解剖结构和小室PV直径信息。
材料与方法：对连续接受心脏CTA和MRA的29例患者进行了评估。使用320排探测器CT系统，通过预期的ECG门控进行对比增强的CTA。使用配备32通道心脏线圈的1.5 T MRI系统，对前瞻性ECG门控进行对比增强的MRA。 MRA是在自由呼吸过程中通过导航器选通的反向恢复准备的稳态自由进动序列获得的。两名读者分别评估了CTA和MRA图像的PV的血管定义（从0，未可视化，到4，极佳的清晰度）和口腔PV直径。对LA解剖结构的变异进行了共识性评估。
结果：所有患者均成功进行了CTA，平均放射线暴露为5.1±2.2 mSv。在29例患者中有27例（93％）成功进行了MRA。与MRA相比，PV的视觉清晰度在CTA上的评级显着更高（p <0.0001；阅读器1：CTA与MRA的优异/良好评级：100％对86％；阅读器2：CTA与MRA的优异/良好评级：99％则为89％）。眼部PV直径的评估显示CTA与MRA之间具有良好的相关性（阅读器1：Pearson r = 0.91；阅读器2：Pearson r = 0.82）。此外，两种成像方法之间用于评估LA解剖结构变异的一致性很高（一致率为95％（95％CI：92-99％））。
结论：与ECG门控MRA相比，ECG门控CTA可提供更高的图像质量。尽管如此，CTA和MRA均提供了类似的LA解剖结构和小室PV直径信息。
