INTRODUCTION: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) requires adequate follow-up imaging to assess complications such as in-stent stenosis or occlusion. Options include digital subtraction angiography, CT angiography, ultrasound, and MR angiography (MRA), which may offer a non-invasive option for CAS follow-up imaging. The aim of this study was to assess contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) and three-dimensional time-of-flight MRA (3D-TOF) for visualization of the in-stent lumen in different carotid stents. METHODS: In this study, we compared CE-MRA and 3D-TOF of five different carotid stents (Guidant Acculink®, Cordis Precise®, Boston Wallstent®, Abbot Vascular Xact®, Cook Zilver®) in three diameters (4, 6, and 8 mm) using a vascular flow model at 3.0 T with the help of a recently developed carotid surface coil. Stent-related artifacts were objectively assessed by calculating artificial lumen narrowing (ALN) and relative in-stent signal (RIS). RESULTS: RIS and ALN depended heavily on stent type, stent diameter, and the employed MR sequence. ALN and RIS were relatively favorable for Acculink®, Precise®, and Zilver® stents with both CE-MRA and 3D-TOF. CE-MRA provided better results for the Wallstent, while the Xact stent was difficult to visualize with both MRA protocols. CONCLUSION: Both CE-MRA and 3D-TOF are viable options for depicting the in-stent lumen in carotid stents. For specific stents, 3D-TOF provided image quality comparable to CE-MRA and may thus be suitable for in vivo assessment. Development of stent-specific pathways for follow-up imaging seems advisable to address stent-related differences in image quality.
INTRODUCTION: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) requires adequate follow-up imaging to assess complications such as in-stent stenosis or occlusion. Options include digital subtraction angiography, CT angiography, ultrasound, and MR angiography (MRA), which may offer a non-invasive option for CAS follow-up imaging. The aim of this study was to assess contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) and three-dimensional time-of-flight MRA (3D-TOF) for visualization of the in-stent lumen in different carotid stents. METHODS: In this study, we compared CE-MRA and 3D-TOF of five different carotid stents (Guidant Acculink®, Cordis Precise®, Boston Wallstent®, Abbot Vascular Xact®, Cook Zilver®) in three diameters (4, 6, and 8 mm) using a vascular flow model at 3.0 T with the help of a recently developed carotid surface coil. Stent-related artifacts were objectively assessed by calculating artificial lumen narrowing (ALN) and relative in-stent signal (RIS). RESULTS: RIS and ALN depended heavily on stent type, stent diameter, and the employed MR sequence. ALN and RIS were relatively favorable for Acculink®, Precise®, and Zilver® stents with both CE-MRA and 3D-TOF. CE-MRA provided better results for the Wallstent, while the Xact stent was difficult to visualize with both MRA protocols. CONCLUSION: Both CE-MRA and 3D-TOF are viable options for depicting the in-stent lumen in carotid stents. For specific stents, 3D-TOF provided image quality comparable to CE-MRA and may thus be suitable for in vivo assessment. Development of stent-specific pathways for follow-up imaging seems advisable to address stent-related differences in image quality.
Authors: T Klemm; S Duda; J Machann; K Seekamp-Rahn; L Schnieder; C D Claussen; F Schick Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Yi Wang; Thuy N Truong; Cecil Yen; Deniz Bilecen; Richard Watts; David W Trost; Martin R Prince Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Klaus D Hagspiel; D A Leung; Kiran R Nandalur; John F Angle; Harjot S Dulai; David J Spinosa; A H Matsumoto; J M Christopher; Hossam Ahmed; S S Berr Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Alexander Wall; Harald Kugel; Rainald Bachman; Lars Matuszewski; Stefan Krämer; Walter Heindel; David Maintz Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Michael Lettau; Annett Sauer; Sabine Heiland; Stefan Rohde; Julia Reinhardt; Martin Bendszus; Stefan Hähnel Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2009-11-19 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Gitsios Gitsioudis; Philipp Fortner; Matthias Stuber; Anna Missiou; Florian Andre; Oliver J Müller; Hugo A Katus; Grigorios Korosoglou Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Franz Wegner; Kerstin Lüdtke-Buzug; Sjef Cremers; Thomas Friedrich; Malte M Sieren; Julian Haegele; Martin A Koch; Emine U Saritas; Paul Borm; Thorsten M Buzug; Joerg Barkhausen; Mandy Ahlborg Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 5.719
Authors: Hakan Göçer; Ahmet Barış Durukan; Osman Tunç; Erdinç Naseri; Ertuğrul Ercan Journal: Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derg Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 0.332