OBJECTIVE: To improve carotid 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) dimension measurements in patients with overt atherosclerotic carotid artery disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 31 patients with advanced atherosclerotic carotid artery disease, two high resolution (0.25 × 0.25 mm(2); HR) and two routinely used low resolution (0.50 × 0.50 mm(2); LR) carotid 3T MRI scans were performed within 1 month. After manual delineation of carotid wall contours in a dedicated image analyses program in eight slices covering the atherosclerotic plaque, image reproducibility, as well as the within-reader and between-reader variability were determined. RESULTS: We found significantly higher intraclass correlation coefficients for total wall volume, mean wall area and mean wall thickness for the HR measurements (all p < 0.05). We found a significant lower signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratio for the HR compared to the LR measurements. The carotid arterial wall dimension measurements of all parameters were significantly lower for the HR compared to the LR measurements. No significant differences were observed between the within-reader and between-reader reproducibility for HR versus LR measurements. CONCLUSION: Increasing the in-plane resolution improves the reproducibility of 3T MRI carotid arterial wall dimension measurements. The use of HR imaging will contribute to a reduced sample size needed in intervention trials using MRI scanning of the carotid artery as surrogate marker for atherosclerosis progression.
OBJECTIVE: To improve carotid 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) dimension measurements in patients with overt atherosclerotic carotid artery disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 31 patients with advanced atherosclerotic carotid artery disease, two high resolution (0.25 × 0.25 mm(2); HR) and two routinely used low resolution (0.50 × 0.50 mm(2); LR) carotid 3T MRI scans were performed within 1 month. After manual delineation of carotid wall contours in a dedicated image analyses program in eight slices covering the atherosclerotic plaque, image reproducibility, as well as the within-reader and between-reader variability were determined. RESULTS: We found significantly higher intraclass correlation coefficients for total wall volume, mean wall area and mean wall thickness for the HR measurements (all p < 0.05). We found a significant lower signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratio for the HR compared to the LR measurements. The carotid arterial wall dimension measurements of all parameters were significantly lower for the HR compared to the LR measurements. No significant differences were observed between the within-reader and between-reader reproducibility for HR versus LR measurements. CONCLUSION: Increasing the in-plane resolution improves the reproducibility of 3T MRI carotid arterial wall dimension measurements. The use of HR imaging will contribute to a reduced sample size needed in intervention trials using MRI scanning of the carotid artery as surrogate marker for atherosclerosis progression.
Authors: Tobias Saam; William S Kerwin; Baocheng Chu; Jianming Cai; Annette Kampschulte; Thomas S Hatsukami; Xue-Qiao Zhao; Nayak L Polissar; Blazej Neradilek; Vasily L Yarnykh; Kelly Flemming; John Huston; William Insull; Joel D Morrisett; Scott D Rand; Kevin J DeMarco; Chun Yuan Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2005 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Vasily L Yarnykh; Masahiro Terashima; Cecil E Hayes; Ann Shimakawa; Norihide Takaya; Patricia K Nguyen; Jean H Brittain; Michael V McConnell; Chun Yuan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mushabbar A Syed; John N Oshinski; Charles Kitchen; Arshad Ali; Richard J Charnigo; Arshed A Quyyumi Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Subha L Airan-Javia; Ronald L Wolf; Megan L Wolfe; Mahlet Tadesse; Emile Mohler; Muredach P Reilly Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2009-02-23 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Tobias Saam; Jose G Raya; Clemens C Cyran; Katja Bochmann; Georgios Meimarakis; Olaf Dietrich; Dirk A Clevert; Ute Frey; Chun Yuan; Thomas S Hatsukami; Abe Werf; Maximilian F Reiser; Konstantin Nikolaou Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2009-10-27 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: James E Montgomery; Michal J Wesolowski; Bailey Wolkowski; Rajni Chibbar; Elisabeth C R Snead; Jaswant Singh; Murray Pettitt; Pritpal S Malhi; Trinita Barboza; Gregg Adams Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2016-03-14
Authors: Claudia Calcagno; Mark E Lobatto; Hadrien Dyvorne; Philip M Robson; Antoine Millon; Max L Senders; Olivier Lairez; Sarayu Ramachandran; Bram F Coolen; Alexandra Black; Willem J M Mulder; Zahi A Fayad Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2015-08-30 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Diederik F van Wijk; Aart C Strang; Raphael Duivenvoorden; Dirk-Jan F Enklaar; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Rob J van der Geest; John J P Kastelein; Eric de Groot; Erik S G Stroes; Aart J Nederveen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shan Gao; Ronald van 't Klooster; Diederik F van Wijk; Aart J Nederveen; Boudewijn P F Lelieveldt; Rob J van der Geest Journal: MAGMA Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Harm A Nieuwstadt; Zaid A M Kassar; Aad van der Lugt; Marcel Breeuwer; Anton F W van der Steen; Jolanda J Wentzel; Frank J H Gijsen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Loek P Smits; Diederik F van Wijk; Raphael Duivenvoorden; Dongxiang Xu; Chun Yuan; Erik S Stroes; Aart J Nederveen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Qinwei Zhang; Bram F Coolen; Sandra van den Berg; Gyula Kotek; Debra S Rivera; Dennis W J Klomp; Gustav J Strijkers; Aart J Nederveen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 3.240