OBJECTIVE: In patients with difficult i.v. access or renal insufficiency, or in those who are pregnant, we hypothesized than an unenhanced 3D segmented steady-state free precession (SSFP) MR angiography (MRA) technique would be an alternative to contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) for the evaluation of vasculature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRA examinations of the thoracic aorta were retrospectively reviewed in 23 patients in whom both CE-MRA and 3D SSFP were performed. CE-MRA was performed using an ECG-gated gradient-echo FLASH sequence. Three-dimensional SSFP MRA was performed during free breathing using a motion-adaptive navigator technique. Quantitative assessment of the 3D SSFP and CE-MRA image sets was performed by comparing the aortic lumen diameter. The quality of the images of the aortic root (scale of 1-5) and the presence of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular pathology were independently determined for both techniques by two reviewers. Bland-Altman and Wilcoxon's signed-rank analyses were performed. RESULTS: The difference in orthogonal measurements of the aortic diameter between those made on images from the 3D SSFP and those made from the CE-MRA sequences was -0.042 cm. The aortic root was better visualized with 3D SSFP: score of 3.78 (of 5) for CE-MRA versus score of 4.65 (of 5) for 3D SSFP (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients in whom contrast material is contraindicated, unenhanced MRA using a 3D SSFP technique can be performed.
OBJECTIVE: In patients with difficult i.v. access or renal insufficiency, or in those who are pregnant, we hypothesized than an unenhanced 3D segmented steady-state free precession (SSFP) MR angiography (MRA) technique would be an alternative to contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) for the evaluation of vasculature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRA examinations of the thoracic aorta were retrospectively reviewed in 23 patients in whom both CE-MRA and 3D SSFP were performed. CE-MRA was performed using an ECG-gated gradient-echo FLASH sequence. Three-dimensional SSFP MRA was performed during free breathing using a motion-adaptive navigator technique. Quantitative assessment of the 3D SSFP and CE-MRA image sets was performed by comparing the aortic lumen diameter. The quality of the images of the aortic root (scale of 1-5) and the presence of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular pathology were independently determined for both techniques by two reviewers. Bland-Altman and Wilcoxon's signed-rank analyses were performed. RESULTS: The difference in orthogonal measurements of the aortic diameter between those made on images from the 3D SSFP and those made from the CE-MRA sequences was -0.042 cm. The aortic root was better visualized with 3D SSFP: score of 3.78 (of 5) for CE-MRA versus score of 4.65 (of 5) for 3D SSFP (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients in whom contrast material is contraindicated, unenhanced MRA using a 3D SSFP technique can be performed.
Authors: Jian Xu; Kelly Anne McGorty; Ruth P Lim; Mary Bruno; James S Babb; Monvadi B Srichai; Daniel Kim; Daniel K Sodickson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Daming Shen; Robert R Edelman; Joshua D Robinson; Hassan Haji-Valizadeh; Marci Messina; Shivraman Giri; Ioannis Koktzoglou; Cynthia K Rigsby; Daniel Kim Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2018 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Logan R Smith; Stephen N Darty; Elizabeth R Jenista; George L Gamoneda; David C Wendell; Clerio F Azevedo; Michele A Parker; Raymond J Kim; Han W Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michael Groth; Peter Bannas; Marc Regier; Jan H Buhk; Kai Müllerleile; Gerhard Adam; Frank O Henes Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-12-20 Impact factor: 5.315