PURPOSE: To evaluate two nonenhanced MRA methods: quiescent-interval single-shot (QISS) and Native SPACE (NATIVE = Non-contrast Angiography of the Arteries and Veins; SPACE = Sampling Perfection with Application Optimized Contrast by using different flip angle Evolution), using contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CEMRA) as a reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients (14 male; mean, 69.3 years old) referred for lower extremity MRA were recruited in a HIPAA-compliant prospective study. QISS and Native SPACE of the lower extremities were performed at 1.5 Tesla with a hybrid dual-injection contrast-enhanced MRA as reference. Image quality and stenosis severity were assessed in segments by two blinded radiologists. Methods were compared with logistic regression for correlated data for diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Of 496 arterial segments, 24 were considered nondiagnostic on the Native SPACE images. There were no QISS or CEMRA imaging segments considered to be nondiagnostic. Image quality was significantly higher for QISS than for Native SPACE. QISS stenosis sensitivity (84.9%) was not significantly different from Native SPACE (87.3%). QISS had better specificity (95.6%) than Native SPACE (87.0%), P = 0.0041. In comparison with QISS, Native SPACE proved less robust for imaging of the abdominal and pelvic segments. CONCLUSION: Native SPACE and QISS were sensitive for hemodynamically significant stenosis in this pilot study. QISS NEMRA demonstrated superior specificity and image quality, and was more robust in the abdominal and pelvic regions.
PURPOSE: To evaluate two nonenhanced MRA methods: quiescent-interval single-shot (QISS) and Native SPACE (NATIVE = Non-contrast Angiography of the Arteries and Veins; SPACE = Sampling Perfection with Application Optimized Contrast by using different flip angle Evolution), using contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CEMRA) as a reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients (14 male; mean, 69.3 years old) referred for lower extremity MRA were recruited in a HIPAA-compliant prospective study. QISS and Native SPACE of the lower extremities were performed at 1.5 Tesla with a hybrid dual-injection contrast-enhanced MRA as reference. Image quality and stenosis severity were assessed in segments by two blinded radiologists. Methods were compared with logistic regression for correlated data for diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Of 496 arterial segments, 24 were considered nondiagnostic on the Native SPACE images. There were no QISS or CEMRA imaging segments considered to be nondiagnostic. Image quality was significantly higher for QISS than for Native SPACE. QISS stenosis sensitivity (84.9%) was not significantly different from Native SPACE (87.3%). QISS had better specificity (95.6%) than Native SPACE (87.0%), P = 0.0041. In comparison with QISS, Native SPACE proved less robust for imaging of the abdominal and pelvic segments. CONCLUSION: Native SPACE and QISS were sensitive for hemodynamically significant stenosis in this pilot study. QISS NEMRA demonstrated superior specificity and image quality, and was more robust in the abdominal and pelvic regions.
Authors: J Klasen; D Blondin; P Schmitt; X Bi; R Sansone; H-J Wittsack; P Kröpil; M Quentin; J Kuhlemann; F Miese; C Heiss; M Kelm; G Antoch; R S Lanzman Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2011-12-03 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Ruth P Lim; Elizabeth M Hecht; Jian Xu; James S Babb; Niels Oesingmann; Samson Wong; Bart E Muhs; Paul Gagne; Vivian S Lee Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Alan T Hirsch; Ziv J Haskal; Norman R Hertzer; Curtis W Bakal; Mark A Creager; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; William R C Murphy; Jeffrey W Olin; Jules B Puschett; Kenneth A Rosenfield; David Sacks; James C Stanley; Lloyd M Taylor; Christopher J White; John White; Rodney A White; Elliott M Antman; Sidney C Smith; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; David P Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Raymond J Gibbons; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon A Hunt; Alice K Jacobs; Rick Nishimura; Joseph P Ornato; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-03-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: R A Baum; C M Rutter; J H Sunshine; J S Blebea; J Blebea; J P Carpenter; K W Dickey; S F Quinn; A S Gomes; T M Grist Journal: JAMA Date: 1995-09-20 Impact factor: 56.272
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