OBJECTIVES: To compare 3D non-enhanced ECG-gated inflow-dependent MRA (NE-MRA) vs. continuous table movement (CTM) MR-angiography and time-resolved TWIST-MRA in the calf station at 3.0 T in a clinical patient collective. METHODS: 36 patients (27 male/9 female, 66.1 ± 14.4 years) with PAOD (stage II-IV) underwent during a single MRI: NE-MRA, contrast-enhanced CTM-MRA and TWIST-MRA with a single dose of a gadolinium-based contrast agent. The image quality (IQ) and the degree of stenoses were rated on a four-point scale. Positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), sensitivity (SS) and specificity (SP) for stenoses detection were calculated for NE-MRA vs. CTM-MRA and vs. TWIST-MRA. Values were obtained for overall graduation of wall changes and for severe stenoses (>70%). RESULTS: With NE-MRA 122/288 segments were not assessable. Compared with CTM-MRA and TWIST-MRA the IQ was significantly inferior (p < 0.0001 to p = 0.0426). CTM-MRA/TWIST-MRA detected stenoses in 44.9%/46.1% of the segments, NE-MRA in 53.5%. SS/NPV of the NE-MRA ranged from 97.8 to 100%. The SP and PPV ranged from 72.7 to 85.5% and 66.7 to 78.2%. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced MRA techniques are superior to NE-MRA regarding IQ and correct identification of stenoses. If technically successful, NE-MRA is characterised by high NPV and overestimation of the degree of stenoses.
OBJECTIVES: To compare 3D non-enhanced ECG-gated inflow-dependent MRA (NE-MRA) vs. continuous table movement (CTM) MR-angiography and time-resolved TWIST-MRA in the calf station at 3.0 T in a clinical patient collective. METHODS: 36 patients (27 male/9 female, 66.1 ± 14.4 years) with PAOD (stage II-IV) underwent during a single MRI: NE-MRA, contrast-enhanced CTM-MRA and TWIST-MRA with a single dose of a gadolinium-based contrast agent. The image quality (IQ) and the degree of stenoses were rated on a four-point scale. Positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), sensitivity (SS) and specificity (SP) for stenoses detection were calculated for NE-MRA vs. CTM-MRA and vs. TWIST-MRA. Values were obtained for overall graduation of wall changes and for severe stenoses (>70%). RESULTS: With NE-MRA 122/288 segments were not assessable. Compared with CTM-MRA and TWIST-MRA the IQ was significantly inferior (p < 0.0001 to p = 0.0426). CTM-MRA/TWIST-MRA detected stenoses in 44.9%/46.1% of the segments, NE-MRA in 53.5%. SS/NPV of the NE-MRA ranged from 97.8 to 100%. The SP and PPV ranged from 72.7 to 85.5% and 66.7 to 78.2%. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced MRA techniques are superior to NE-MRA regarding IQ and correct identification of stenoses. If technically successful, NE-MRA is characterised by high NPV and overestimation of the degree of stenoses.
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: 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: Matthias Voth; Stefan Haneder; Kurt Huck; Alexandra Gutfleisch; Stefan O Schönberg; Henrik J Michaely Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 6.016
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: Domenico De Santis; Carlo N De Cecco; U Joseph Schoepf; John W Nance; Ricardo T Yamada; Brooke A Thomas; Katharina Otani; Brian E Jacobs; D Alan Turner; Julian L Wichmann; Marwen Eid; Akos Varga-Szemes; Damiano Caruso; Katharine L Grant; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas J Vogl; Andrea Laghi; Moritz H Albrecht Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-02-25 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