European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 4625–4634 | Cite as

Is MRI equivalent to CT in the guidance of TAVR? A pilot study

  • Agnes Mayr
  • Gert Klug
  • Sebastian J. Reinstadler
  • Hans-Josef Feistritzer
  • Martin Reindl
  • Christian Kremser
  • Christof Kranewitter
  • Nikolaos Bonaros
  • Guy Friedrich
  • Gudrun Feuchtner
  • Bernhard MetzlerEmail author



To compare a comprehensive cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol with contrast-enhanced computed tomography angiography (CTA) for guidance in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) evaluation.

Methods and results

Non-contrast three-dimensional (3D) ‘whole heart’ MRI imaging for aortic annulus sizing and measurements of coronary ostia heights, contrast-enhanced MRI angiography (MRA) for evaluation of transfemoral routes as well as aortoiliofemoral-CTA were performed in 16 patients referred for evaluation of TAVR. Aortic annulus measurements by MRI and CTA showed a very strong correlation (r=0.956, p<0.0001; effective annulus area for MRI 430±74 vs. 428±78 mm2 for CTA, p=0.629). Regarding decision for valve size there was complete consistency between MRI and CTA. Moreover, vessel luminal diameters and angulations of aortoiliofemoral access as measured by MRA and CTA showed overall very strong correlations (r= 0.819 to 0.996, all p<0.001), the agreement of minimal vessel diameter between the two modalities revealed a bias of 0.02 mm (upper and lower limit of agreement: 1.02 mm and -0.98 mm).


In patients referred for TAVR, MRI measurements of aortic annulus and minimal aortoiliofemoral diameters showed good to excellent agreement. Decisions based on MRI measurements regrading prosthesis sizing and transfemoral access would not have modified TAVR-strategy as compared to a CTA-based choice.

Key Points

• ‘Whole heart’ MRI and CTA measurements of aortic annulus correlate very strongly.

• MRI- and CTA-based prostheses sizing are in excellent agreement.

• MRA and CTA equally guide TAVR access strategy.


Cardiac imaging techniques Magnetic resonance angiography Aortic valve Contrast media CT angiography 



Computed tomography angiography


Estimated Glomerular filtration rate


Intra-class correlation coefficients


Interquartile range


Left main artery


Magnetic resonance angiography


Magnetic resonance imaging


Normal distribution


Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis


Right coronary artery


Standard deviation


Steady-state free precession


Transcatheter aortic valve replacement


Echo time


Transesophageal echocardiography


Repetition time


Transesophageal echocardiography



The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards


The scientific guarantor of this publication is Agnes Mayr, MD.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.


• prospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution


  1. 1.
    Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ et al (2017) 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 38:2739–2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosenhek R, Binder T, Porenta G et al (2000) Predictors of outcome in severe, asymptomatic aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med 343:611–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO et al (2014) 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 63:2438–2488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ et al (2016) Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med 374:1609–1620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zamorano JL, Goncalves A, Lang R (2014) Imaging to select and guide transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J 35:1578–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barbash IM, Ben-Dor I, Dvir D et al (2012) Incidence and predictors of acute kidney injury after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Am Heart J 163:1031–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bagur R, Webb JG, Nietlispach F et al (2010) Acute kidney injury following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: predictive factors, prognostic value, and comparison with surgical aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J 31:865–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Najjar M, Salna M, George I (2015) Acute kidney injury after aortic valve replacement: incidence, risk factors and outcomes. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 13:301–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chieffo A, Giustino G, Spagnolo P et al (2015) Routine Screening of Coronary Artery Disease With Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography in Place of Invasive Coronary Angiography in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 8:e002025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spagnolo P, Giglio M, Di Marco D et al (2016) Feasibility of ultra-low contrast 64-slice computed tomography angiography before transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a real-world experience. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 17:24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mayr A, Klug G, Schocke M et al (2012) Late microvascular obstruction after acute myocardial infarction: relation with cardiac and inflammatory markers. Int J Cardiol 157:391–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klug G, Reinstadler SJ, Feistritzer HJ et al (2016) Cardiac index after acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction measured with phase-contrast cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 26:1999–2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feistritzer HJ, Klug G, Reinstadler SJ et al (2016) Oscillometric analysis compared with cardiac magnetic resonance for the assessment of aortic pulse wave velocity in patients with myocardial infarction. J Hypertens 34:1746–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koos R, Altiok E, Mahnken AH et al (2012) Evaluation of aortic root for definition of prosthesis size by magnetic resonance imaging and cardiac computed tomography: implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Int J Cardiol 158:353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruile P, Blanke P, Krauss T et al (2016) Pre-procedural assessment of aortic annulus dimensions for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: comparison of a non-contrast 3D MRA protocol with contrast-enhanced cardiac dual-source CT angiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 17:458–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Renker M, Varga-Szemes A, Schoepf UJ et al (2016) A non-contrast self-navigated 3-dimensional MR technique for aortic root and vascular access route assessment in the context of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: proof of concept. Eur Radiol 26:951–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bernhardt P, Rodewald C, Seeger J et al (2016) Non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography is equal to contrast-enhanced multislice computed tomography for correct aortic sizing before transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Clin Res Cardiol 105:273–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prince MR, Narasimham DL, Jacoby WT et al (1996) Three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography of the thoracic aorta. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:1387–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Menke J, Larsen J (2010) Meta-analysis: Accuracy of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for assessing steno-occlusions in peripheral arterial disease. Ann Intern Med 153:325–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thurnher SA, Dorffner R, Thurnher MM et al (1997) Evaluation of abdominal aortic aneurysm for stent-graft placement: comparison of gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography versus helical CT angiography and digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 205:341–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Plank F, Friedrich G, Bartel T et al (2012) Benefits of high-pitch 128-slice dual-source computed tomography for planning of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg 94:1961–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Binder RK, Webb JG, Willson AB et al (2013) The impact of integration of a multidetector computed tomography annulus area sizing algorithm on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a prospective, multicenter, controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 62:431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blanke P, Willson AB, Webb JG et al (2014) Oversizing in transcatheter aortic valve replacement, a commonly used term but a poorly understood one: dependency on definition and geometrical measurements. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 8:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Suchá D, Tuncay V, Prakken NH et al (2015) Does the aortic annulus undergo conformational change throughout the cardiac cycle? A systematic review. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 16(12):1307–1317PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paelinck BP, Van Herck PL, Rodrigus I et al (2011) Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging of aortic valve stenosis and aortic root to multimodality imaging for selection of transcatheter aortic valve implantation candidates. Am J Cardiol 108:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pontone G, Andreini D, Bartorelli AL et al (2013) Comparison of accuracy of aortic root annulus assessment with cardiac magnetic resonance versus echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol 112:1790–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Borisch I, Horn M, Butz B et al (2003) Preoperative evaluation of carotid artery stenosis: comparison of contrast-enhanced MR angiography and duplex sonography with digital subtraction angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 24:1117–1122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    De Cobelli F, Venturini M, Vanzulli A et al (2000) Renal arterial stenosis: prospective comparison of color Doppler US and breath-hold, three-dimensional, dynamic, gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography. Radiology 214:373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Randoux B, Marro B, Koskas F, Chiras J, Dormont D, Marsault C (2003) Proximal great vessels of aortic arch: comparison of three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 229:697–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sherrah AG, Grieve SM, Jeremy RW, Bannon PG, Vallely MP, Puranik R (2015) MRI in Chronic Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review and Future Directions. Front Cardiovasc Med 2:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Di Cesare E, Giordano AV, Cerone G, De Remigis F, Deusanio G, Masciocchi C (2000) Comparative evaluation of TEE, conventional MRI and contrast-enhanced 3D breath-hold MRA in the post-operative follow-up of dissecting aneurysms. Int J Card Imaging 16:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Owen AR, Roditi GH (2011) Peripheral arterial disease: the evolving role of non-invasive imaging. Postgrad Med J 87:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Kock MC, Hunink MG (2007) Lower extremity arterial disease: multidetector CT angiography meta-analysis. Radiology 245:433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Laurent S, Elst LV, Muller RN (2006) Comparative study of the physicochemical properties of six clinical low molecular weight gadolinium contrast agents. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 1:128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hao D, Ai T, Goerner F, Hu X, Runge VM, Tweedle M (2012) MRI contrast agents: basic chemistry and safety. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:1060–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Perazella MA (2009) Advanced kidney disease, gadolinium and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: the perfect storm. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 18:519–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sadowski EA, Bennett LK, Chan MR et al (2007) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: risk factors and incidence estimation. Radiology 243:148–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thomsen HS, European Society of Urogenital R (2007) ESUR guideline: gadolinium-based contrast media and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Eur Radiol 17:2692–2696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Thomsen HS, Morcos SK, Almen T et al (2013) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast media: updated ESUR Contrast Medium Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol 23:307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lind Ramskov K, Thomsen HS (2009) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and contrast medium-induced nephropathy: a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea for patients with reduced renal function? Acta Radiol 50:965–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Martin DR, Semelka RC, Chapman A et al (2009) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis versus contrast-induced nephropathy: risks and benefits of contrast-enhanced MR and CT in renally impaired patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:1350–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Barbanti M, Yang TH, Rodes Cabau J et al (2013) Anatomical and procedural features associated with aortic root rupture during balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circulation 128:244–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Barrett JF, Keat N (2004) Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics 24:1679–1691CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Agnes Mayr
    • 1
  • Gert Klug
    • 2
  • Sebastian J. Reinstadler
    • 2
  • Hans-Josef Feistritzer
    • 2
  • Martin Reindl
    • 2
  • Christian Kremser
    • 1
  • Christof Kranewitter
    • 1
  • Nikolaos Bonaros
    • 3
  • Guy Friedrich
    • 2
  • Gudrun Feuchtner
    • 1
  • Bernhard Metzler
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.University Clinic of Radiology, Medical University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.University Clinic of Internal Medicine III, Cardiology and AngiologyMedical University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  3. 3.University Clinic of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations