OBJECTIVE: Non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) carotid imaging with the time-of-flight (TOF) technique compares favorably with angiography, ultrasound, and excised plaques. However, gadolinium contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) has almost universally replaced TOF-MRA, because it reduces imaging time (25 seconds vs 10 minutes) and improves signal-to-noise ratio. In our practice we found alarming discrepancies between CE-MRA and TOF-MRA, which was the impetus for this study.Study design To compare the two techniques, we measured stenosis, demonstrated on three-dimensional images obtained at TOF and CE-MRA, in 107 carotid arteries in 58 male patients. The measurements were made on a Cemax workstation equipped with enlargement and measurement tools. Measurements to 0.1 mm were made at 90 degrees to the flow channel at the area of maximal stenosis and distal to the bulb where the borders of the internal carotid artery lumen were judged to be parallel (North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria). Experiments with carotid phantoms were done to test the contribution of imaging software to image quality. RESULTS: Twelve arteries were occluded. In the remaining 95 arteries, compared with TOF-MRA, CE-MRA demonstrated a greater degree of stenosis in 42 arteries, a lesser degree of stenosis in 14 arteries, and similar (+/-5%) stenosis in 39 arteries (P =.02, chi(2) analysis). The largest discrepancies were arteries with 0% to 70% stenosis. In those arteries in which CE-MRA identified a greater degree of stenosis than shown with TOF-MRA, mean increase was 21% for 0% to 29% stenosis, 36% for 30% to 49% stenosis, and 38% for of 50% to 69% stenosis. The carotid phantom experiments showed that the imaging parameters of CE-MRA, particularly the plane on which frequency encoding gradients were applied, reduced signal acquisition at the area of stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively these data demonstrate that CE-MRA parameters must be retooled if the method is to be considered reliable for determination of severity of carotid artery stenosis. CE-MRA is an excellent screening technique, but only TOF-MRA should be used to determine degree of carotid artery stenosis.
OBJECTIVE: Non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) carotid imaging with the time-of-flight (TOF) technique compares favorably with angiography, ultrasound, and excised plaques. However, gadolinium contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) has almost universally replaced TOF-MRA, because it reduces imaging time (25 seconds vs 10 minutes) and improves signal-to-noise ratio. In our practice we found alarming discrepancies between CE-MRA and TOF-MRA, which was the impetus for this study.Study design To compare the two techniques, we measured stenosis, demonstrated on three-dimensional images obtained at TOF and CE-MRA, in 107 carotid arteries in 58 male patients. The measurements were made on a Cemax workstation equipped with enlargement and measurement tools. Measurements to 0.1 mm were made at 90 degrees to the flow channel at the area of maximal stenosis and distal to the bulb where the borders of the internal carotid artery lumen were judged to be parallel (North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria). Experiments with carotid phantoms were done to test the contribution of imaging software to image quality. RESULTS: Twelve arteries were occluded. In the remaining 95 arteries, compared with TOF-MRA, CE-MRA demonstrated a greater degree of stenosis in 42 arteries, a lesser degree of stenosis in 14 arteries, and similar (+/-5%) stenosis in 39 arteries (P =.02, chi(2) analysis). The largest discrepancies were arteries with 0% to 70% stenosis. In those arteries in which CE-MRA identified a greater degree of stenosis than shown with TOF-MRA, mean increase was 21% for 0% to 29% stenosis, 36% for 30% to 49% stenosis, and 38% for of 50% to 69% stenosis. The carotid phantom experiments showed that the imaging parameters of CE-MRA, particularly the plane on which frequency encoding gradients were applied, reduced signal acquisition at the area of stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively these data demonstrate that CE-MRA parameters must be retooled if the method is to be considered reliable for determination of severity of carotid artery stenosis. CE-MRA is an excellent screening technique, but only TOF-MRA should be used to determine degree of carotid artery stenosis.
Authors: R P Lim; M Shapiro; E Y Wang; M Law; J S Babb; L E Rueff; J S Jacob; S Kim; R H Carson; T P Mulholland; G Laub; E M Hecht Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-09-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Lisa C Adams; Sarah M Böker; Yvonne Y Bender; Eva M Fallenberg; Moritz Wagner; Thomas Liebig; Bernd Hamm; Marcus R Makowski Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Philip Hoelter; Stefan Lang; Marina Weibart; Manuel Schmidt; Michael F X Knott; Tobias Engelhorn; Marco Essig; Stephan Kloska; Arnd Doerfler Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 2.804