PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of time-resolved three-dimensional contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography with that of conventional angiography for imaging the lower extremity vasculature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine patients who were evaluated for possible surgical intervention underwent conventional angiography (ie, digital subtraction angiography [DSA]) and contrast-enhanced MR angiography (ie, time-resolved imaging of contrast kinetics [TRICKS]). Two independent, blinded readers evaluated vessel stenosis and occlusion at DSA and MR angiographic image readings. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance. The Cohen kappa test was performed to examine interreader variability. RESULTS: At pooled readings, contrast-enhanced MR angiography had a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 98% for detection of occlusion. For detection of significant stenosis (at least one > or = 50% stenosis), sensitivity and specificity were 77% and 91%, respectively. Interreader agreement was high for detection of both occlusion (kappa = 0.76) and significant stenosis (kappa = 0.68). Sensitivity increased as MR angiographic technical parameters were optimized. When improvements resulting from coil type and injection protocol were considered, the sensitivity and specificity of TRICKS MR angiography were 89% and 97%, respectively, for occlusion detection and 87% and 90%, respectively, for significant stenosis detection. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced TRICKS MR angiography is a feasible and minimally invasive means of acquiring angiograms of the peripheral vasculature with high sensitivity and specificity.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of time-resolved three-dimensional contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography with that of conventional angiography for imaging the lower extremity vasculature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine patients who were evaluated for possible surgical intervention underwent conventional angiography (ie, digital subtraction angiography [DSA]) and contrast-enhanced MR angiography (ie, time-resolved imaging of contrast kinetics [TRICKS]). Two independent, blinded readers evaluated vessel stenosis and occlusion at DSA and MR angiographic image readings. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance. The Cohen kappa test was performed to examine interreader variability. RESULTS: At pooled readings, contrast-enhanced MR angiography had a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 98% for detection of occlusion. For detection of significant stenosis (at least one > or = 50% stenosis), sensitivity and specificity were 77% and 91%, respectively. Interreader agreement was high for detection of both occlusion (kappa = 0.76) and significant stenosis (kappa = 0.68). Sensitivity increased as MR angiographic technical parameters were optimized. When improvements resulting from coil type and injection protocol were considered, the sensitivity and specificity of TRICKS MR angiography were 89% and 97%, respectively, for occlusion detection and 87% and 90%, respectively, for significant stenosis detection. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced TRICKS MR angiography is a feasible and minimally invasive means of acquiring angiograms of the peripheral vasculature with high sensitivity and specificity.
Authors: Sonja Kinner; Harald H Quick; Stefan Maderwald; Peter Hunold; Jörg Barkhausen; Florian M Vogt Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: R Schmitt; G Coblenz; O Cherevatyy; H Brunner; S Fröhner; E Wedell; G Karg; G Christopoulos Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-07-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Harald Kramer; Henrik J Michaely; Martin Requardt; Martin Rohrer; Scott Reeder; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-11-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stephen J Riederer; Clifton R Haider; Eric A Borisch; Paul T Weavers; Phillip M Young Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Philip A Hodnett; Emily V Ward; Amir H Davarpanah; Timothy G Scanlon; Jeremy D Collins; Christopher B Glielmi; Xiaoming Bi; Ioannis Koktzoglou; Navyash Gupta; James C Carr; Robert R Edelman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ting Song; Andrew F Laine; Qun Chen; Henry Rusinek; Louisa Bokacheva; Ruth P Lim; Gerhard Laub; Randall Kroeker; Vivian S Lee Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 4.668