N Takahashi1, M Sato, M Niitsu, Y Saida. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Ibaraki, Japan. nbyktakahashi@yahoo.co.jp
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate image subtraction in a three-dimensional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (3D CE-MRA) using fat suppression for the hemodialysis fistula. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifteen patients suffering from hemodialysis fistula dysfunction were imaged with 3D CE-MRA using fat suppression and digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Non-subtracted and subtracted MRA images using maximum intensity projection (MIP) were constructed and the validity of the MRA interpretations of the degree of vascular stenoses was evaluated using DSA as the standard of reference. Image quality was assessed using qualitative analysis (vessel contrast) and quantitative analysis (contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the vessel versus the background). RESULTS: In the vessels with stenosis of 50% or greater, the sensitivity and specificity of the non-subtracted MRA were 89.5% and 81.8%, respectively, and of the subtracted MRA 89.5% and 86.4%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the detectability of stenoses between either MRA. The vessel contrast of the anterior interosseous artery and the CNR of the anterior interosseous artery versus the background on the subtracted MRA were significantly superior to those on the non-subtracted MRA. With regard to the radial artery and cephalic vein, there was no significant difference in the vessel contrast and CNR between either MRA. CONCLUSION: Both subtracted and non-subtracted MRA techniques are useful in detecting hemodialysis fistula dysfunction.
PURPOSE: To evaluate image subtraction in a three-dimensional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (3D CE-MRA) using fat suppression for the hemodialysis fistula. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifteen patients suffering from hemodialysis fistula dysfunction were imaged with 3D CE-MRA using fat suppression and digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Non-subtracted and subtracted MRA images using maximum intensity projection (MIP) were constructed and the validity of the MRA interpretations of the degree of vascular stenoses was evaluated using DSA as the standard of reference. Image quality was assessed using qualitative analysis (vessel contrast) and quantitative analysis (contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the vessel versus the background). RESULTS: In the vessels with stenosis of 50% or greater, the sensitivity and specificity of the non-subtracted MRA were 89.5% and 81.8%, respectively, and of the subtracted MRA 89.5% and 86.4%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the detectability of stenoses between either MRA. The vessel contrast of the anterior interosseous artery and the CNR of the anterior interosseous artery versus the background on the subtracted MRA were significantly superior to those on the non-subtracted MRA. With regard to the radial artery and cephalic vein, there was no significant difference in the vessel contrast and CNR between either MRA. CONCLUSION: Both subtracted and non-subtracted MRA techniques are useful in detecting hemodialysis fistula dysfunction.