Table 3.
Comparison of the aortic diameters as determined by 2D-SSFP and 3D-Dixon MR-imaging as described by Bland and Altman
| 3D-Dixon vs. 2D-SSFP | Sinuses of Valsalva | Sinotubular junction | Ascending aorta | Mid aortic arch | Descending aorta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean diameter 3D-Dixon (mm) | 38.2 ± 6.8 | 28.1 ± 5.5 | 27.4 ± 5.4 | 22.0 ± 3.2 | 22.6 ± 3.2 |
| Mean diameter 2D-SSFP (mm) | 38.3 ± 7.1 | 28.2 ± 5.0 | 27.0 ± 5.1 | 22.0 ± 3.3 | 20.9 ± 3.6 |
| Mean difference (mm) | 0.1 | 0.2 | −0.4 | 0.1 | −1.7 |
| Limit of agreements (mm) | −2.1 to 2.4 | −4.9 to 5.3 | −4.4 to 3.6 | −2.7 to 2.9 | −4.9 to 1.5 |
| Standard deviation (mm) | 1.1 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Variance (mm2) | 1.3 | 6.8 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 2.7 |
| p value (t test) | 0.53 | 0.66 | 0.16 | 0.69 | 0.001 |
| Pearson´s correlation (r) | 0.99 | 0.88 | 0.93 | 0.9 | 0.89 |
Pearson´s correlation coefficient (r) between different imaging techniques is given. T-test was performed for comparison of mean differences. Significant differences are in boldface (significant at p < 0.05)