BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: First-pass contrast-enhanced MR angiography has become the technique of choice for studying the carotid bifurcation, but this method has some limitations. We evaluated the clinical utility of performing 3D contrast-enhanced MR angiography in the axial plane immediately after performing angiography in the coronal plane. METHODS: Cervical carotid arteries of 80 consecutive patients were studied on a 1.5-T MR imager with phased-array coils. Coronal 3D MR angiography was performed after administering a bolus injection of contrast material (20 mL) with automatic triggering. This was immediately followed by an axial acquisition. We measured carotid diameters on the contrast-enhanced MR angiograms as well as on intra-arterial digital subtraction angiograms according to established criteria. We also evaluated original source MR angiograms. RESULTS: Angiograms obtained in the axial plane correlated better with the intra-arterial digital subtraction angiograms than did the coronal angiograms. When first-pass contrast-enhanced MR angiography was incomplete because of a failure of triggering, the second-phase acquisition provided sufficient image quality. Original source images suffered from ring artifacts, low axial resolution, and a low level of soft-tissue visualization. Axial-based source images showed flow-independent contrast filling to the patent lumen with sufficient visualization of plaque morphology, thickened arterial wall, and surrounding disease processes, such as tumors. CONCLUSION: With the addition of a 1-minute second-phase 3D acquisition in a different plane immediately after first-pass contrast-enhanced MR angiography, one can obtain a more accurate depiction of the carotid bifurcation, insurance against failure of triggering, and diagnostic source images.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: First-pass contrast-enhanced MR angiography has become the technique of choice for studying the carotid bifurcation, but this method has some limitations. We evaluated the clinical utility of performing 3D contrast-enhanced MR angiography in the axial plane immediately after performing angiography in the coronal plane. METHODS: Cervical carotid arteries of 80 consecutive patients were studied on a 1.5-T MR imager with phased-array coils. Coronal 3D MR angiography was performed after administering a bolus injection of contrast material (20 mL) with automatic triggering. This was immediately followed by an axial acquisition. We measured carotid diameters on the contrast-enhanced MR angiograms as well as on intra-arterial digital subtraction angiograms according to established criteria. We also evaluated original source MR angiograms. RESULTS: Angiograms obtained in the axial plane correlated better with the intra-arterial digital subtraction angiograms than did the coronal angiograms. When first-pass contrast-enhanced MR angiography was incomplete because of a failure of triggering, the second-phase acquisition provided sufficient image quality. Original source images suffered from ring artifacts, low axial resolution, and a low level of soft-tissue visualization. Axial-based source images showed flow-independent contrast filling to the patent lumen with sufficient visualization of plaque morphology, thickened arterial wall, and surrounding disease processes, such as tumors. CONCLUSION: With the addition of a 1-minute second-phase 3D acquisition in a different plane immediately after first-pass contrast-enhanced MR angiography, one can obtain a more accurate depiction of the carotid bifurcation, insurance against failure of triggering, and diagnostic source images.
Authors: R B Schwartz; K M Jones; D M Chernoff; S K Mukherji; R Khorasani; H M Tice; R Kikinis; S M Hooton; P E Stieg; J F Polak Journal: Radiology Date: 1992-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: S Aoki; I Shirouzu; Y Sasaki; T Okubo; N Hayashi; T Machida; E Hoshi; K Suzuki; N Funada; T Araki Journal: Radiology Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Carina W Yang; James C Carr; Stephen F Futterer; Mark D Morasch; Benson P Yang; Stephanie M Shors; J Paul Finn Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M Trelles; K M Eberhardt; M Buchholz; A Schindler; A Bayer-Karpinska; M Dichgans; M F Reiser; K Nikolaou; T Saam Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jaywant P Parmar; Walter J Rogers; John P Mugler; Erol Baskurt; Talissa A Altes; Kiran R Nandalur; George J Stukenborg; C Douglas Phillips; Klaus D Hagspiel; Alan H Matsumoto; Michael D Dake; Christopher M Kramer Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: M Anzidei; A Napoli; D Geiger; B Cavallo Marincola; C Zini; F Zaccagna; P Di Paolo; C Catalano; R Passariello Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-02-22 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: John R Eisenbrey; Anush Sridharan; Ebo D deMuinck; Marvin M Doyley; Flemming Forsberg Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Jean M U-King-Im; Rikin A Trivedi; Evis Sala; Martin J Graves; Mathew Gaskarth; Nicholas J Higgins; Justin C Cross; William Hollingworth; Richard A Coulden; Peter J Kirkpatrick; Nagui M Antoun; Jonathan H Gillard Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2004-03-06 Impact factor: 5.315