PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the accuracy of 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3 T magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) versus digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in the depiction of infrageniculate arteries in patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective 1.5 T, 3 T MRA, and DSA comparison was used to evaluate 360 vessel segments in 10 patients (15 limbs) with chronic symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. Selective DSA was performed within 30 days before both MRAs. The accuracy of 1.5 T and 3 T MRA was compared with DSA as the standard of reference by consensus agreement of 2 experienced readers. Signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) and signal-difference-to-noise ratios (SDNRs) were quantified. RESULTS: No significant difference in overall image quality, sufficiency for diagnosis, depiction of arterial anatomy, motion artifacts, and venous overlap was found comparing 1.5 T with 3 T MRA (P > 0.05 by Wilcoxon signed rank and as by Cohen k test). Overall sensitivity of 1.5 and 3 T MRA for detection of significant arterial stenosis was 79% and 82%, and specificity was 87% and 87% for both modalities, respectively. Interobserver agreement was excellent k > 0.8, P < 0.05) for 1.5 T as well as for 3 T MRA. SNR and SDNR were significantly increased using the 3 T system (average increase: 36.5%, P < 0.032 by t test, and 38.5%, P < 0.037 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite marked improvement of SDNR, 3 T MRA does not yet provide a significantly higher accuracy in diagnostic imaging of atherosclerotic lesions below the knee joint as compared with 1.5 T MRA.
PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the accuracy of 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3 T magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) versus digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in the depiction of infrageniculate arteries in patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective 1.5 T, 3 T MRA, and DSA comparison was used to evaluate 360 vessel segments in 10 patients (15 limbs) with chronic symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. Selective DSA was performed within 30 days before both MRAs. The accuracy of 1.5 T and 3 T MRA was compared with DSA as the standard of reference by consensus agreement of 2 experienced readers. Signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) and signal-difference-to-noise ratios (SDNRs) were quantified. RESULTS: No significant difference in overall image quality, sufficiency for diagnosis, depiction of arterial anatomy, motion artifacts, and venous overlap was found comparing 1.5 T with 3 T MRA (P > 0.05 by Wilcoxon signed rank and as by Cohen k test). Overall sensitivity of 1.5 and 3 T MRA for detection of significant arterial stenosis was 79% and 82%, and specificity was 87% and 87% for both modalities, respectively. Interobserver agreement was excellent k > 0.8, P < 0.05) for 1.5 T as well as for 3 T MRA. SNR and SDNR were significantly increased using the 3 T system (average increase: 36.5%, P < 0.032 by t test, and 38.5%, P < 0.037 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite marked improvement of SDNR, 3 T MRA does not yet provide a significantly higher accuracy in diagnostic imaging of atherosclerotic lesions below the knee joint as compared with 1.5 T MRA.
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: Jonathan R Weir-McCall; Richard D White; Prasad G Ramkumar; Stephen J Gandy; Faisel Khan; Jill J F Belch; Allan D Struthers; J Graeme Houston Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 2.357