Agreement between methods of measurement of mean aortic wall thickness by MRI

• Published in: Journal of magnetic resonance imaging Vol. 29; no. 3; pp. 576 - 582
• Main Authors: Rosero, Eric B., Peshock, Ronald M., Khera, Amit, Clagett, G. Patrick, Lo, Hao, Timaran, Carlos
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company 01.03.2009
• Subjects: Aorta, Abdominal - pathology; atherosclerosis; Body Weights and Measures - methods; cardiovascular MRI; Cohort Studies; Coronary Artery Disease - diagnosis; Endothelium, Vascular - pathology; Female; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Male; Middle Aged; Reproducibility of Results; Texas; wall thickness; Texas
• ISSN: 1053-1807; 1522-2586; 1522-2586
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21697

Purpose To assess the agreement between three methods of calculation of mean aortic wall thickness (MAWT) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Materials and Methods High‐resolution MRI of the infrarenal abdominal aorta was performed on 70 subjects with a history of coronary artery disease who were part of a multi‐ethnic population‐based sample. MAWT was calculated as the mean distance between the adventitial and luminal aortic boundaries using three different methods: average distance at four standard positions (AWT‐4P), average distance at 100 automated positions (AWT‐100P), and using a mathematical computation derived from the total vessel and luminal areas (AWT‐VA). Bland‐Altman plots and Passing‐Bablok regression analyses were used to assess agreement between methods. Results Bland‐Altman analyses demonstrated a positive bias of 3.02 ± 7.31% between the AWT‐VA and the AWT‐4P methods, and of 1.76 ± 6.82% between the AWT‐100P and the AWT‐4P methods. Passing‐Bablok regression analyses demonstrated constant bias between the AWT‐4P method and the other two methods. Proportional bias was, however, not evident among the three methods. Conclusion MRI methods of measurement of MAWT using a limited number of positions of the aortic wall systematically underestimate the MAWT value compared with the method that calculates MAWT from the vessel areas. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2009;29:576–582. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.