OBJECTIVE: This study was to evaluate diagnostic performance of unenhanced electrocardiography-gated fast spin echo based MRA with variable flip angle on 3.0 T for assessment of calf arteries in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD). METHODS: 64 patients underwent unenhanced MRA (UE), time-resolved contrast-enhanced MRA of the calf and bolus-chase contrast-enhanced lower peripheral MRA (BCE). Diagnostic performance of UE was evaluated and compared with contrast-enhanced MRA in 61 patients and x-ray angiography in 10 patients. RESULTS: With UE, 852 of 960 segments (88.75%) were diagnostic even in patients with arrhythmia, demonstrating similar image quality with those on BCE (P > 0.05). For those diagnostic segments, statistics revealed good agreement between unenhanced and contrast-enhanced techniques with a Kappa value of 0.77 and 0.75 for stenosis detection and visualized vessel length, respectively. When using X-ray angiography as reference standard, no significant difference was found between UE and contrast-enhanced MRA concerning sensitivity and specificity in depiction of severe stenosis and occlusion (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although further technical refinements are required, this optimized UE technique may be used as a supplement to contrast-enhanced MRA particularly in patients with PAOD in whom venous contamination occurs frequently.
OBJECTIVE: This study was to evaluate diagnostic performance of unenhanced electrocardiography-gated fast spin echo based MRA with variable flip angle on 3.0 T for assessment of calf arteries in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD). METHODS: 64 patients underwent unenhanced MRA (UE), time-resolved contrast-enhanced MRA of the calf and bolus-chase contrast-enhanced lower peripheral MRA (BCE). Diagnostic performance of UE was evaluated and compared with contrast-enhanced MRA in 61 patients and x-ray angiography in 10 patients. RESULTS: With UE, 852 of 960 segments (88.75%) were diagnostic even in patients with arrhythmia, demonstrating similar image quality with those on BCE (P > 0.05). For those diagnostic segments, statistics revealed good agreement between unenhanced and contrast-enhanced techniques with a Kappa value of 0.77 and 0.75 for stenosis detection and visualized vessel length, respectively. When using X-ray angiography as reference standard, no significant difference was found between UE and contrast-enhanced MRA concerning sensitivity and specificity in depiction of severe stenosis and occlusion (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although further technical refinements are required, this optimized UE technique may be used as a supplement to contrast-enhanced MRA particularly in patients with PAOD in whom venous contamination occurs frequently.
Authors: Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Winnie Y Hahn; Elizabeth M Hecht; Barak Friedman; James S Babb; Glenn R Jacobowitz; Vivian S Lee Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Harald Kramer; Henrik J Michaely; Volker Matschl; Peter Schmitt; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Frank Berg; Christopher Bangard; Henning Bovenschulte; Martin Hellmich; Marco Nijenhuis; Klaus Lackner; Axel Gossmann Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Ruth P Lim; Pippa Storey; Iliyana P Atanasova; Jian Xu; Elizabeth M Hecht; James S Babb; David R Stoffel; Hugo Chang; Kellyanne McGorty; Qun Chen; Henry Rusinek; H Michael Belmont; Vivian S Lee Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christoph U Herborn; David M Watkins; Val M Runge; Jilene M Gendron; Mark L Montgomery; L Gill Naul Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-02-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Dietmar J Dinter; K Wolfgang Neff; Giovanni Visciani; Ricarda Lachmann; Christel Weiss; Stefan O Schoenberg; Henrik J Michaely Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Hakan Demirtaş; Tuna Parpar; Bumin Değirmenci; Mustafa Kara; Ahmet Orhan Çelik; Ayşe Umul; Mustafa Kayan; Ömer Yılmaz Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Marc D Lindley; Daniel Kim; Glen Morrell; Marta E Heilbrun; Pippa Storey; Christopher J Hanrahan; Vivian S Lee Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Iliyana P Atanasova; Daniel Kim; Pippa Storey; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ruth P Lim; Vivian S Lee Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-01-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kolja M Thierfelder; Georgios Meimarakis; Konstantin Nikolaou; Wieland H Sommer; Peter Schmitt; Philipp M Kazmierczak; Maximilian F Reiser; Daniel Theisen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 3.240