OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of semiautomated analysis of contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in patients who have undergone standard angiographic evaluation for peripheral vascular disease (PVD). BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance angiography is an important tool for evaluating PVD. Although this technique is both safe and noninvasive, the accuracy and reproducibility of quantitative measurements of disease severity using MRA in the clinical setting have not been fully investigated. METHODS: 43 lesions in 13 patients who underwent both MRA and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) of iliac and common femoral arteries within 6 months were analyzed using quantitative magnetic resonance angiography (QMRA) and quantitative vascular analysis (QVA). Analysis was repeated by a second operator and by the same operator in approximately 1 month time. RESULTS: QMRA underestimated percent diameter stenosis (%DS) compared to measurements made with QVA by 2.47%. Limits of agreement between the two methods were +/- 9.14%. Interobserver variability in measurements of %DS were +/- 12.58% for QMRA and +/- 10.04% for QVA. Intraobserver variability of %DS for QMRA was +/- 4.6% and for QVA was +/- 8.46%. CONCLUSIONS: QMRA displays a high level of agreement to QVA when used to determine stenosis severity in iliac and common femoral arteries. Similar levels of interobserver and intraobserver variability are present with each method. Overall, QMRA represents a useful method to quantify severity of PVD.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of semiautomated analysis of contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in patients who have undergone standard angiographic evaluation for peripheral vascular disease (PVD). BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance angiography is an important tool for evaluating PVD. Although this technique is both safe and noninvasive, the accuracy and reproducibility of quantitative measurements of disease severity using MRA in the clinical setting have not been fully investigated. METHODS: 43 lesions in 13 patients who underwent both MRA and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) of iliac and common femoral arteries within 6 months were analyzed using quantitative magnetic resonance angiography (QMRA) and quantitative vascular analysis (QVA). Analysis was repeated by a second operator and by the same operator in approximately 1 month time. RESULTS: QMRA underestimated percent diameter stenosis (%DS) compared to measurements made with QVA by 2.47%. Limits of agreement between the two methods were +/- 9.14%. Interobserver variability in measurements of %DS were +/- 12.58% for QMRA and +/- 10.04% for QVA. Intraobserver variability of %DS for QMRA was +/- 4.6% and for QVA was +/- 8.46%. CONCLUSIONS: QMRA displays a high level of agreement to QVA when used to determine stenosis severity in iliac and common femoral arteries. Similar levels of interobserver and intraobserver variability are present with each method. Overall, QMRA represents a useful method to quantify severity of PVD.
Authors: Marianne de Vries; Patrick J de Koning; Michiel W de Haan; Alphons G Kessels; Patricia J Nelemans; Robbert J Nijenhuis; R Nils Planken; G Boudewijn C Vasbinder; Jos M A van Engelshoven; Rob J van der Geest; Tim Leiner Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Neil J Weissman; Joerg Koglin; David A Cox; James Hermiller; Charles O'Shaughnessy; James Tift Mann; Mark Turco; Ronald Caputo; Patrick Bergin; Joel Greenberg; Michael Kutcher; S Chiu Wong; Warren Strickland; Michael Mooney; Mary E Russell; Stephen G Ellis; Gregg W Stone Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-04-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: M Lenhart; T Herold; M Völk; J Seitz; C Manke; N Zorger; U Dorenbeck; M Requardt; W R Nitz; P Kasprzak; S Feuerbach; J Link Journal: Rofo Date: 2000-12
Authors: Marc C J M Kock; Miraude E A P M Adriaensen; Peter M T Pattynama; Marc R H M van Sambeek; Hero van Urk; Theo Stijnen; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christian Loewe; Maria Schoder; Thomas Rand; Udo Hoffmann; Johannes Sailer; Thomas Kos; Johannes Lammer; Siegfried Thurnher Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 3.959