OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate first-pass i.v. gadofosveset-enhanced MR angiography in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease for visualization of the pedal arteries and stenosis or occlusion of those arteries with intraarterial digital subtraction angiography as the reference standard. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease (nine women, 11 men; age-range 58-83 years) were prospectively enrolled. Gadofosveset first-pass contrast-enhanced MR angiography was performed with a 1.5-T system, a dedicated foot coil, and cuff compression to the calf. Arterial segments were assessed for degree of arterial stenosis, arterial visibility, diagnostic utility, and venous contamination. Detection of vessel stenosis or occlusion was evaluated in comparison with findings at digital subtraction angiography. The unpaired Student's t test was used to test arterial visibility with the two techniques. RESULTS: First-pass MR angiography with gadofosveset had good diagnostic utility in 83.9% of all segments and no venous contamination in 96.8% of all segments. There was no difference between the performance of intraarterial digital subtraction angiography and that of i.v. contrast-enhanced MR angiography in arterial visibility overall (p = 0.245) or in subgroup analysis of surgical arterial bypass targets (p = 0.202). The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of i.v. gadofosveset-enhanced MR angiography for characterization of clinically significant stenosis and occlusion were 91.4%, 96.1%, and 93.9%. In the subgroup analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 85.5%, 96.5%, and 92.1%. CONCLUSION: Gadofosveset-enhanced MR angiography of the pedal arteries in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease has arterial visibility equal to that of digital subtraction angiography and facilitates depiction of clinically significant stenosis and occlusion.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate first-pass i.v. gadofosveset-enhanced MR angiography in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease for visualization of the pedal arteries and stenosis or occlusion of those arteries with intraarterial digital subtraction angiography as the reference standard. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease (nine women, 11 men; age-range 58-83 years) were prospectively enrolled. Gadofosveset first-pass contrast-enhanced MR angiography was performed with a 1.5-T system, a dedicated foot coil, and cuff compression to the calf. Arterial segments were assessed for degree of arterial stenosis, arterial visibility, diagnostic utility, and venous contamination. Detection of vessel stenosis or occlusion was evaluated in comparison with findings at digital subtraction angiography. The unpaired Student's t test was used to test arterial visibility with the two techniques. RESULTS: First-pass MR angiography with gadofosveset had good diagnostic utility in 83.9% of all segments and no venous contamination in 96.8% of all segments. There was no difference between the performance of intraarterial digital subtraction angiography and that of i.v. contrast-enhanced MR angiography in arterial visibility overall (p = 0.245) or in subgroup analysis of surgical arterial bypass targets (p = 0.202). The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of i.v. gadofosveset-enhanced MR angiography for characterization of clinically significant stenosis and occlusion were 91.4%, 96.1%, and 93.9%. In the subgroup analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 85.5%, 96.5%, and 92.1%. CONCLUSION:Gadofosveset-enhanced MR angiography of the pedal arteries in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease has arterial visibility equal to that of digital subtraction angiography and facilitates depiction of clinically significant stenosis and occlusion.
Authors: Tilman Schubert; Martin Takes; Markus Aschwanden; Markus Klarhoefer; Tanja Haas; Augustinus L Jacob; David Liu; Andreas Gutzeit; Sebastian Kos Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andreas Gutzeit; Reto Sutter; Johannes M Froehlich; Justus E Roos; Thomas Sautter; Erik Schoch; Barbara Giger; Michael Wyss; Nicole Graf; Constantin von Weymarn; Regula Jenelten; Christoph A Binkert; Klaus Hergan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-05-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Clifton R Haider; Stephen J Riederer; Eric A Borisch; James F Glockner; Roger C Grimm; Thomas C Hulshizer; Thanila A Macedo; Petrice M Mostardi; Phillip J Rossman; Terri J Vrtiska; Phillip M Young Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Boris Röhrl; Rainer Peter Kunz; Katja Oberholzer; Michael Bernhard Pitton; Achim Neufang; Christoph Dueber; Karl-Friedrich Kreitner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.315