PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the accuracy of high-spatial-resolution steady-state magnetic resonance (MR) angiography with standard-resolution first-pass MR angiography in the lower extremities, with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional ethics committee approval and written informed consent were obtained. Twenty-seven patients (16 men, 11 women; mean age, 64.4 years +/- 14.8 [standard deviation]; range, 26-87 years) suspected of having or known to have peripheral arterial disease underwent first-pass and steady-state MR angiography and DSA. First-pass and steady-state MR angiography were performed in the same patient in the same session and with the same dose of blood pool contrast agent. The most severe stenosis grade of each evaluated segment was measured; sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated at first-pass and steady-state MR angiography, with DSA as the reference standard. The kappa coefficient was used to measure the agreement between first-pass MR angiography, steady-state MR angiography, and DSA. RESULTS: A total of 334 arterial segments were available for intraindividual comparison of first-pass MR angiography, steady-state MR angiography, and DSA in 27 patients. In 20 (74%) of 27 patients, the stenosis grade of at least one of the evaluated vessels differed at steady-state MR angiography from that at first-pass MR angiography. In total, stenosis grade was judged as higher at first-pass MR angiography than at DSA (overestimation) in 28 of 334 segments and as lower (underestimation) in 15 of 334 segments. The stenosis grade as judged at steady-state MR angiography matched with that at DSA in 334 of 334 vessel segments. CONCLUSION: High-spatial-resolution steady-state MR angiography allowed for better agreement with DSA regarding stenosis grade in patients with arterial disease compared with standard-resolution arterial-phase first-pass MR angiography. (c) RSNA, 2008.
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the accuracy of high-spatial-resolution steady-state magnetic resonance (MR) angiography with standard-resolution first-pass MR angiography in the lower extremities, with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional ethics committee approval and written informed consent were obtained. Twenty-seven patients (16 men, 11 women; mean age, 64.4 years +/- 14.8 [standard deviation]; range, 26-87 years) suspected of having or known to have peripheral arterial disease underwent first-pass and steady-state MR angiography and DSA. First-pass and steady-state MR angiography were performed in the same patient in the same session and with the same dose of blood pool contrast agent. The most severe stenosis grade of each evaluated segment was measured; sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated at first-pass and steady-state MR angiography, with DSA as the reference standard. The kappa coefficient was used to measure the agreement between first-pass MR angiography, steady-state MR angiography, and DSA. RESULTS: A total of 334 arterial segments were available for intraindividual comparison of first-pass MR angiography, steady-state MR angiography, and DSA in 27 patients. In 20 (74%) of 27 patients, the stenosis grade of at least one of the evaluated vessels differed at steady-state MR angiography from that at first-pass MR angiography. In total, stenosis grade was judged as higher at first-pass MR angiography than at DSA (overestimation) in 28 of 334 segments and as lower (underestimation) in 15 of 334 segments. The stenosis grade as judged at steady-state MR angiography matched with that at DSA in 334 of 334 vessel segments. CONCLUSION: High-spatial-resolution steady-state MR angiography allowed for better agreement with DSA regarding stenosis grade in patients with arterial disease compared with standard-resolution arterial-phase first-pass MR angiography. (c) RSNA, 2008.
Authors: Christina M Plank; Florian Wolf; Herbert Langenberger; Michael Weber; Dietrich Beitzke; Alfred Stadler; Martin Schillinger; Johannes Lammer; Christian Loewe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Samuel W Fielden; John P Mugler; Klaus D Hagspiel; Patrick T Norton; Christopher M Kramer; Craig H Meyer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-04-17 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Casey P Johnson; Paul T Weavers; Eric A Borisch; Roger C Grimm; Thomas C Hulshizer; Christine C LaPlante; Phillip J Rossman; James F Glockner; Phillip M Young; Stephen J Riederer Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Paul D Stein; Thomas L Chenevert; Sarah E Fowler; Lawrence R Goodman; Alexander Gottschalk; Charles A Hales; Russell D Hull; Kathleen A Jablonski; Kenneth V Leeper; David P Naidich; Daniel J Sak; H Dirk Sostman; Victor F Tapson; John G Weg; Pamela K Woodard Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-04-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: H Dirk Sostman; Kathleen A Jablonski; Pamela K Woodard; Paul D Stein; David P Naidich; Thomas L Chenevert; John G Weg; Charles A Hales; Russell D Hull; Lawrence R Goodman; Victor F Tapson Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 2.357