External Aortic Root Support to Prevent Aortic Dilatation in Patients With Marfan Syndrome

Background: Personalized external aortic root support (PEARS) was introduced in 2004 for prevention of aortic root dilatation in Marfan patients. The individual's aortic root is replicated by 3-dimensional printing. A polymer mesh sleeve is manufactured, which is implanted with the aim to support and stabilize the aortic wall. / Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess effectiveness of PEARS for prevention of aortic root dilatation in Marfan patients. / Methods: A total of 24 consecutive Marfan patients operated 2004 to 2012 were prospectively monitored with magnetic resonance imaging. Following a pre-defined protocol, baseline and follow-up aorta measurements were made in a blinded random sequence. / Results: The mean age of the patients was 33 ± 13.3 years (range: 16 to 58 years), and the mean aortic root diameter was 45 ± 2.8 mm (range: 41 to 52 mm). Follow-up was 6.3 ± 2.6 years. There was no increase in the aortic root and ascending aorta diameters, but there was a tendency toward reduction: annulus diameter 28.9 ± 2.3 mm to 28.5 ± 2.4 mm (change −0.39 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −1.05 to 0.27 mm), sinus of Valsalva diameter 44.9 ± 2.9 mm to 44.5 ± 3.0 mm (change −0.37 mm, 95% CI: −1.23 to 0.51 mm), and ascending aorta diameter 32.4 ± 3.6 mm to 32.3 ± 3.7 mm (change −0.10 mm, 95% CI: −0.92 to 0.74 mm). In the same period, the descending aorta diameter increased from 22.9 ± 2.4 mm to 24.2 ± 3.0 mm (change 1.32 mm, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.94 mm; p < 0.001) with a tendency toward increase in aortic arch diameter 24.1 ± 2.0 mm to 24.5 ± 2.8 mm (change 0.41 mm, 95% CI: −0.56 to 1.37 mm). / Conclusions: PEARS is effective in stabilizing the aortic root and preventing its dilatation. It is a viable alternative for prevention of aortic root dissection in Marfan patients

Validation of T2* in-line analysis for tissue iron quantification at 1.5 T.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for improved worldwide access to tissue iron quantification using T2* cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). One route to facilitate this would be simple in-line T2* analysis widely available on MR scanners. We therefore compared our clinically validated and established T2* method at Royal Brompton Hospital (RBH T2*) against a novel work-in-progress (WIP) sequence with in-line T2* measurement from Siemens (WIP T2*). METHODS: Healthy volunteers (n = 22) and patients with iron overload (n = 78) were recruited (53 males, median age 34 years). A 1.5 T study (Magnetom Avanto, Siemens) was performed on all subjects. The same mid-ventricular short axis cardiac slice and transaxial slice through the liver were used to acquire both RBH T2* images and WIP T2* maps for each participant. Cardiac white blood (WB) and black blood (BB) sequences were acquired. Intraobserver, interobserver and interstudy reproducibility were measured on the same data from a subset of 20 participants. RESULTS: Liver T2* values ranged from 0.8 to 35.7 ms (median 5.1 ms) and cardiac T2* values from 6.0 to 52.3 ms (median 31 ms). The coefficient of variance (CoV) values for direct comparison of T2* values by RBH and WIP were 6.1-7.8 % across techniques. Accurate delineation of the septum was difficult on some WIP T2* maps due to artefacts. The inability to manually correct for noise by truncation of erroneous later echo times led to some overestimation of T2* using WIP T2* compared with the RBH T2*. Reproducibility CoV results for RBH T2* ranged from 1.5 to 5.7 % which were better than the reproducibility of WIP T2* values of 4.1-16.6 %. CONCLUSIONS: Iron estimation using the T2* CMR sequence in combination with Siemens' in-line data processing is generally satisfactory and may help facilitate global access to tissue iron assessment. The current automated T2* map technique is less good for tissue iron assessment with noisy data at low T2* values

Comparison of 3 T and 1.5 T for T2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron.

BACKGROUND: T2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron concentration has improved the outcome of transfusion dependant anaemia patients. Clinical evaluation is performed at 1.5 T but scanners operating at 3 T are increasing in numbers. There is a paucity of data on the relative merits of iron quantification at 3 T vs 1.5 T. METHODS: A total of 104 transfusion dependent anaemia patients and 20 normal volunteers were prospectively recruited to undergo cardiac and liver T2* assessment at both 1.5 T and 3 T. Intra-observer, inter-observer and inter-study reproducibility analysis were performed on 20 randomly selected patients for cardiac and liver T2*. RESULTS: Association between heart and liver T2* at 1.5 T and 3 T was non-linear with good fit (R (2) = 0.954, p < 0.001 for heart white-blood (WB) imaging; R (2) = 0.931, p < 0.001 for heart black-blood (BB) imaging; R (2) = 0.993, p < 0.001 for liver imaging). R2* approximately doubled between 1.5 T and 3 T with linear fits for both heart and liver (94, 94 and 105 % respectively). Coefficients of variation for intra- and inter-observer reproducibility, as well as inter-study reproducibility trended to be less good at 3 T (3.5 to 6.5 %) than at 1.5 T (1.4 to 5.7 %) for both heart and liver T2*. Artefact scores for the heart were significantly worse with the 3 T BB sequence (median 4, IQR 2-5) compared with the 1.5 T BB sequence (4 [3-5], p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Heart and liver T2* and R2* at 3 T show close association with 1.5 T values, but there were more artefacts at 3 T and trends to lower reproducibility causing difficulty in quantifying low T2* values with high tissue iron. Therefore T2* imaging at 1.5 T remains the gold standard for clinical practice. However, in centres where only 3 T is available, equivalent values at 1.5 T may be approximated by halving the 3 T tissue R2* with subsequent conversion to T2*