Nan Zhang1, Zhaoyang Fan2, Nan Luo1, Xiaoming Bi3, Yike Zhao1, Jing An4, Jiayi Liu1, Zhong Chen5, Zhanming Fan1, Debiao Li2. 1. Department of Radiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 2. Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 3. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Siemens Healthcare, China, MR Collaborations NE Asia, Beijing, China. 5. Department of Vascular Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic performance of flow-sensitive dephasing (FSD)-prepared steady-state free precession (SSFP) MR angiography (MRA) for imaging infragenual arteries at 3.0T, with contrast enhanced MR angiography (CE MRA) as reference. METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients with suspicion of lower extremity arterial disease undergoing routine CE MRA were recruited. FSD MRA was performed at calf before CE MRA. Image quality and stenosis degree of infragenual arteries from both techniques were independently evaluated and compared. Six patients in this study underwent DSA examination. RESULTS: Three undiagnostic segments were excluded with severe venous contamination in CE MRA. A total of 197 calf arterial segments images were analyzed. No significant difference existed in the relative signal intensity (rSI) of arterial segments between FSD MRA and CE MRA techniques (0.92 ± 0.09 versus 0.93 ± 0.05; P = 0.207). However, the subjective image quality score was slightly higher in FSD MRA (3.66 ± 0.81 versus 3.49 ± 0.87; P = 0.050). With CE MRA images as reference standard, slight overestimation existed in FSD MRA (2.19 ± 1.24 versus 2.09 ± 1.18; P = 0.019), with total agreement of 84.3% on the basis of all arterial segments. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of FSD MRA was 96.4%, 93.0%, 98.5%, and 84.1%. No significant difference in the stenosis degree score was detected between MRA (FSD MRA and CE MRA) and DSA (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: FSD MRA performed on at 3.0T without the use of contrast medium provides diagnostic images allowing for arterial stenosis assessment of calf arteries that was highly comparable with CE MRA. Moreover, venous contamination was less problematic with FSD MRA.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic performance of flow-sensitive dephasing (FSD)-prepared steady-state free precession (SSFP) MR angiography (MRA) for imaging infragenual arteries at 3.0T, with contrast enhanced MR angiography (CE MRA) as reference. METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients with suspicion of lower extremity arterial disease undergoing routine CE MRA were recruited. FSD MRA was performed at calf before CE MRA. Image quality and stenosis degree of infragenual arteries from both techniques were independently evaluated and compared. Six patients in this study underwent DSA examination. RESULTS: Three undiagnostic segments were excluded with severe venous contamination in CE MRA. A total of 197 calf arterial segments images were analyzed. No significant difference existed in the relative signal intensity (rSI) of arterial segments between FSD MRA and CE MRA techniques (0.92 ± 0.09 versus 0.93 ± 0.05; P = 0.207). However, the subjective image quality score was slightly higher in FSD MRA (3.66 ± 0.81 versus 3.49 ± 0.87; P = 0.050). With CE MRA images as reference standard, slight overestimation existed in FSD MRA (2.19 ± 1.24 versus 2.09 ± 1.18; P = 0.019), with total agreement of 84.3% on the basis of all arterial segments. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of FSD MRA was 96.4%, 93.0%, 98.5%, and 84.1%. No significant difference in the stenosis degree score was detected between MRA (FSD MRA and CE MRA) and DSA (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: FSD MRA performed on at 3.0T without the use of contrast medium provides diagnostic images allowing for arterial stenosis assessment of calf arteries that was highly comparable with CE MRA. Moreover, venous contamination was less problematic with FSD MRA.
Authors: Stefan Haneder; Ulrike I Attenberger; Philipp Riffel; Thomas Henzler; Stefan O Schoenberg; Henrik J Michaely Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Philipp Riffel; Stefan Haneder; Ulrike I Attenberger; Joachim Brade; Stefan O Schoenberg; Henrik J Michaely Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-12-18 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Alex Frydrychowicz; Michael Markl; Daniel Hirtler; Andreas Harloff; Christian Schlensak; Julia Geiger; Brigitte Stiller; Raoul Arnold Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: John F LaDisa; C Alberto Figueroa; Irene E Vignon-Clementel; Hyun Jin Kim; Nan Xiao; Laura M Ellwein; Frandics P Chan; Jeffrey A Feinstein; Charles A Taylor Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Peter Marckmann; Lone Skov; Kristian Rossen; Anders Dupont; Mette Brimnes Damholt; James Goya Heaf; Henrik S Thomsen Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2006-08-02 Impact factor: 10.121
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; Elliot M Antman; Sidney C Smith; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; David P Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Raymond J Gibbons; Sharon A Hunt; Alice K Jacobs; Rick Nishimura; Joseph P Ornato; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Robert R Edelman; John J Sheehan; Eugene Dunkle; Nancy Schindler; James Carr; Ioannis Koktzoglou Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: James H Holmes; Mu-Lan Jen; Laura B Eisenmenger; Tilman Schubert; Patrick A Turski; Kevin M Johnson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-02-21 Impact factor: 3.737