PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a nonenhanced electrocardiograph-gated quiescent-interval single shot MR-angiography (QISS-MRA) at 3 Tesla with contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) serving as reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following institutional review board approval, 16 consecutive patients with peripheral arterial disease underwent a combined peripheral MRA protocol consisting of a large field-of-view QISS-MRA, continuous table movement MRA, and an additional time-resolved MRA of the calves. DSA correlation was available in eight patients. Image quality and degree of stenosis was assessed. Sensitivity and specificity of QISS-MRA was evaluated with CE-MRA and DSA serving as the standards of reference and compared using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: With the exception of the calf station, image quality with QISS-MRA was rated statistically significantly less than that of CE-MRA (P < 0.05, P = 0.17, and P = 0.6, respectively). A greater percentage of segments were not accessible with QISS-MRA (19.5-20.1%) in comparison to CE-MRA (10.9%). Relative to DSA, sensitivity for QISS-MRA was high (100% versus 91.2% for CE-MRA, P = 0.24) in the evaluated segments; however, specificity (76.5%) was substantially less than that of CE-MRA (94.6%, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Overall image quality and specificity of QISS-MRA at 3T are diminished relative to CE-MRA. However, when image quality is adequate, QISS-MRA has high sensitivity and, thus, has potential use in patients with contraindications to gadolinium.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a nonenhanced electrocardiograph-gated quiescent-interval single shot MR-angiography (QISS-MRA) at 3 Tesla with contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) serving as reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following institutional review board approval, 16 consecutive patients with peripheral arterial disease underwent a combined peripheral MRA protocol consisting of a large field-of-view QISS-MRA, continuous table movement MRA, and an additional time-resolved MRA of the calves. DSA correlation was available in eight patients. Image quality and degree of stenosis was assessed. Sensitivity and specificity of QISS-MRA was evaluated with CE-MRA and DSA serving as the standards of reference and compared using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: With the exception of the calf station, image quality with QISS-MRA was rated statistically significantly less than that of CE-MRA (P < 0.05, P = 0.17, and P = 0.6, respectively). A greater percentage of segments were not accessible with QISS-MRA (19.5-20.1%) in comparison to CE-MRA (10.9%). Relative to DSA, sensitivity for QISS-MRA was high (100% versus 91.2% for CE-MRA, P = 0.24) in the evaluated segments; however, specificity (76.5%) was substantially less than that of CE-MRA (94.6%, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Overall image quality and specificity of QISS-MRA at 3T are diminished relative to CE-MRA. However, when image quality is adequate, QISS-MRA has high sensitivity and, thus, has potential use in patients with contraindications to gadolinium.
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: Akos Varga-Szemes; Emily A Aherne; U Joseph Schoepf; Thomas M Todoran; Ioannis Koktzoglou; Robert R Edelman Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Michael Rasper; Moritz Wildgruber; Marcus Settles; Hans-Henning Eckstein; Alexander Zimmermann; Christian Reeps; Ernst J Rummeny; Armin M Huber Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 5.315