BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MRV has been proposed as a possible screening method to identify chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, which may play a role in MS. We report our initial experience comparing MRV and CV in MS patients to evaluate venous stenosis and collateral venous drainage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Time-of-flight and time-resolved imaging of contrast kinetics MRV and CV were performed in 39 MS patients. The presence and severity of both IJ vein caliber changes and non-IJ collaterals were graded by using a 4-point scale by 2 radiologists in an independent and blinded manner. RESULTS: Both studies frequently showed venous abnormalities, most commonly IJ flattening at the C1 level and in the lower neck. There was moderate-to-good agreement between the modalities (κ = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45%-0.65%). For collaterals, agreement was only fair (κ = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.09%-0.50%). The prevalence of IJ segments graded mild or worse on CV was 54%. If CV was considered a standard, the sensitivity and specificity of MRV was 0.79 (0.71-0.86) and 0.76 (0.67-0.83), respectively. Degree of stenosis was related to the severity of collaterals for CV but not for MRV. CONCLUSIONS: IJ caliber changes were seen in characteristic locations on both MRV and CV in MS patients. Agreement between modalities was higher for stenosis than for collaterals. If CV is considered a standard, MRV performance is good but may require additional improvement before MRV can be used for screening.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MRV has been proposed as a possible screening method to identify chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, which may play a role in MS. We report our initial experience comparing MRV and CV in MSpatients to evaluate venous stenosis and collateral venous drainage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Time-of-flight and time-resolved imaging of contrast kinetics MRV and CV were performed in 39 MSpatients. The presence and severity of both IJ vein caliber changes and non-IJ collaterals were graded by using a 4-point scale by 2 radiologists in an independent and blinded manner. RESULTS: Both studies frequently showed venous abnormalities, most commonly IJ flattening at the C1 level and in the lower neck. There was moderate-to-good agreement between the modalities (κ = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45%-0.65%). For collaterals, agreement was only fair (κ = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.09%-0.50%). The prevalence of IJ segments graded mild or worse on CV was 54%. If CV was considered a standard, the sensitivity and specificity of MRV was 0.79 (0.71-0.86) and 0.76 (0.67-0.83), respectively. Degree of stenosis was related to the severity of collaterals for CV but not for MRV. CONCLUSIONS: IJ caliber changes were seen in characteristic locations on both MRV and CV in MSpatients. Agreement between modalities was higher for stenosis than for collaterals. If CV is considered a standard, MRV performance is good but may require additional improvement before MRV can be used for screening.
Authors: J P Carpenter; R S Owen; R A Baum; C Cope; C F Barker; H D Berkowitz; M A Golden; L J Perloff Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 1992-12 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Florian Doepp; Stephan J Schreiber; Thomas von Münster; Jörg Rademacher; Randolf Klingebiel; José M Valdueza Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: D Hojnacki; P Zamboni; A Lopez-Soriano; R Galleotti; E Menegatti; B Weinstock-Guttman; C Schirda; C Magnano; A M Malagoni; C Kennedy; I Bartolomei; F Salvi; R Zivadinov Journal: Int Angiol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.789
Authors: Olaf Hoffmann; Randolf Klingebiel; Johann S Braun; Juri Katchanov; José M Valdueza Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Omar Khan; Massimo Filippi; Mark S Freedman; Frederik Barkhof; Paula Dore-Duffy; Hans Lassmann; Bruce Trapp; Amit Bar-Or; Imad Zak; Marilyn J Siegel; Robert Lisak Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Michael Markl; Frandics P Chan; Marcus T Alley; Kris L Wedding; Mary T Draney; Chris J Elkins; David W Parker; Ryan Wicker; Charles A Taylor; Robert J Herfkens; Norbert J Pelc Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: P Zamboni; R Galeotti; E Menegatti; A M Malagoni; G Tacconi; S Dall'Ara; I Bartolomei; F Salvi Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2008-12-05 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: R A McTaggart; N J Fischbein; C J Elkins; A Hsiao; M J Cutalo; J Rosenberg; M D Dake; G Zaharchuk Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M Stefanini; S Fabiano; F Garaci; S Marziali; A Meschini; V Cama; M Fornari; S Rossi; D Centonze; R Gandini; G Simonetti; R Floris Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M Tamizur Rahman; Sean K Sethi; David T Utriainen; J Joseph Hewett; E Mark Haacke Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: P Belov; D Jakimovski; J Krawiecki; C Magnano; J Hagemeier; L Pelizzari; B Weinstock-Guttman; R Zivadinov Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: E M Schrauben; K M Johnson; J Huston; A M Del Rio; S B Reeder; A Field; O Wieben Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-11-28 Impact factor: 3.825