PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of duplex ultrasound (US) and MR angiography (MRA) at 1.0 T in aortoiliac arterial disease using digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard. In addition, a comparison of the 2D time-of-flight (TOF) and 3D contrast-enhanced MRA (CE MRA) techniques was performed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospectively, 39 patients with symptoms of lower-extremity arterial occlusive disease were examined using US, TOF MRA, CE MRA and DSA. Significant lesions (stenosis > or =50%) and occlusions were evaluated blindly for each method. RESULTS: For all segments, the sensitivity for US, TOF MRA and CE MRA with regard to significant lesions was 0.72, 0.81 and 0.81, respectively, and the specificity for each was 0.97, 0.91 and 0.92, respectively. For significant lesions above the inguinal ligament the corresponding sensitivity was 0.84, 0.89 and 0.94 and the specificity 0.93, 0.82 and 0.73, respectively. The specificity was higher when the two MRA methods were combined. TOF MRA overgraded 7 segments as occluded. In most cases, the length of the occlusions was correctly determined on CE MRA, overestimated on TOF MRA and uncertain on US. CONCLUSION: Neither US nor MRA were sufficiently accurate to fully replace angiography. MRA was preferable to US as a non-invasive test when vascular intervention was contemplated. Although CE MRA was superior to TOF MRA, the most accurate results were achieved when the two methods were combined.
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of duplex ultrasound (US) and MR angiography (MRA) at 1.0 T in aortoiliac arterial disease using digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard. In addition, a comparison of the 2D time-of-flight (TOF) and 3D contrast-enhanced MRA (CE MRA) techniques was performed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospectively, 39 patients with symptoms of lower-extremity arterial occlusive disease were examined using US, TOF MRA, CE MRA and DSA. Significant lesions (stenosis > or =50%) and occlusions were evaluated blindly for each method. RESULTS: For all segments, the sensitivity for US, TOF MRA and CE MRA with regard to significant lesions was 0.72, 0.81 and 0.81, respectively, and the specificity for each was 0.97, 0.91 and 0.92, respectively. For significant lesions above the inguinal ligament the corresponding sensitivity was 0.84, 0.89 and 0.94 and the specificity 0.93, 0.82 and 0.73, respectively. The specificity was higher when the two MRA methods were combined. TOF MRA overgraded 7 segments as occluded. In most cases, the length of the occlusions was correctly determined on CE MRA, overestimated on TOF MRA and uncertain on US. CONCLUSION: Neither US nor MRA were sufficiently accurate to fully replace angiography. MRA was preferable to US as a non-invasive test when vascular intervention was contemplated. Although CE MRA was superior to TOF MRA, the most accurate results were achieved when the two methods were combined.
Authors: Elsaline Rijkse; Hongchao Qi; Shabnam Babakry; Diederik C Bijdevaate; Hendrikus J A N Kimenai; Joke I Roodnat; Jan N M IJzermans; Robert C Minnee Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2021-09-12 Impact factor: 3.842