Measuring aortic diameter with different MR techniques: Comparison of three‐dimensional (3D) navigated steady‐state free‐precession (SSFP), 3D contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE‐MRA), 2D T2 black blood, and 2D cine SSFP

PURPOSE: To compare nongated three-dimensional (3D) contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) with 3D-navigated cardiac-gated steady-state free-precession bright blood (3D-nav SSFP) and noncontrast 2D techniques for ascending aorta dimension measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five clinical exams were reviewed to evaluate the ascending aorta at 1.5T using: breathhold cine bright blood (SSFP), cardiac-triggered T2 black blood (T2 BB), axial 3D-nav SSFP, and nongated 3D CE-MRA. Three radiologists independently measured aortic size at three specified locations for each sequence. Means, SDs, interobserver correlation, and vessel edge sharpness were statistically evaluated. RESULTS: Measurements were greatest for 3D-nav SSFP and 3D CE-MRA and smallest for T2 BB. There was no significant difference between 3D-nav SSFP and 3D CE-MRA (P = 0.43-0.86), but significance was observed comparing T2 BB to all sequences. Interobserver agreement was uniformly >0.9, with T2 BB best, followed closely by 3D-nav SSFP and 2D cine SSFP, and 3D CE-MRA being the worst. Edge sharpness was significantly poorer for 3D CE-MRA compared to the other sequences (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: If diameter measurements are the main clinical concern, 3D-nav SSFP appears to be the best choice, as it has a sharp edge profile, is easy to acquire and postprocess, and shows very good interobserver correlation.