Bin Yao1, Li Yang2, Guangbin Wang3, Honglu Shi4, Shanshan Wang4, Huihua Li4, Weibo Chen5, Queenie Chan5. 1. The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China. 2. Department of Radiology, Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. 3. Shandong Medical Imaging Research Institute, Shandong University, Jinan, 250021, Shandong, People's Republic of China. wgb7932596@hotmail.com. 4. Shandong Medical Imaging Research Institute, Shandong University, Jinan, 250021, Shandong, People's Republic of China. 5. Philips Healthcare, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the difference between carotid haemorrhagic plaque and non-haemorrhagic plaque by using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and to evaluate carotid intraplaque haemorrhage (IPH) and intramural hematoma (IMH) of cervical artery dissection with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement. METHODS: Fifty-one symptomatic patients underwent 3.0-T carotid MR imaging, including conventional sequences, three-dimensional (3D) magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition gradient-echo (MPRAGE) sequence, and DWI. Thirty-nine patients with carotid plaque and eight patients with IMH of cervical artery dissection were finally included. The groups of hemorrhagic plaque, non-hemorrhagic plaque and IMH were divided according to 3D MPRAGE sequence. ADC values of different groups were measured, and t tests were performed. RESULTS: The mean ADC values of hemorrhagic plaques, non-hemorrhagic plaque and IMH were (1.284 ± 0.327) × 10(-3)mm(2)/s, (1.766 ± 0.477) × 10(-3)mm(2)/s, and (0.563 ± 0.119) × 10(-3)mm(2)/s, respectively. The mean ADC values of hemorrhagic and non-hemorrhagic regions in the hemorrhagic plaque group were (0.985 ± 0.376) × 10(-3)mm(2)/s and (1.480 ± 0.465) × 10(-3)mm(2)/s, respectively. The differences between the hemorrhagic plaque and non-hemorrhagic plaque, hemorrhagic region and non-hemorrhagic region in hemorrhagic plaque, and the hemorrhagic region in the hemorrhagic plaque and IMH of artery dissection were significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: DWI may be a useful complement to conventional MR imaging for identifying haemorrhage of carotid plaques and differentiate IMHs from IPH. KEY POINTS: • ADC values of IPH are lower than the plaque without IPH. • DWI might be a useful complement to identify IPH. • IMH may be differentiated from IPH by using DWI.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the difference between carotid haemorrhagic plaque and non-haemorrhagic plaque by using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and to evaluate carotid intraplaque haemorrhage (IPH) and intramural hematoma (IMH) of cervical artery dissection with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement. METHODS: Fifty-one symptomatic patients underwent 3.0-T carotid MR imaging, including conventional sequences, three-dimensional (3D) magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition gradient-echo (MPRAGE) sequence, and DWI. Thirty-nine patients with carotid plaque and eight patients with IMH of cervical artery dissection were finally included. The groups of hemorrhagic plaque, non-hemorrhagic plaque and IMH were divided according to 3D MPRAGE sequence. ADC values of different groups were measured, and t tests were performed. RESULTS: The mean ADC values of hemorrhagic plaques, non-hemorrhagic plaque and IMH were (1.284 ± 0.327) × 10(-3)mm(2)/s, (1.766 ± 0.477) × 10(-3)mm(2)/s, and (0.563 ± 0.119) × 10(-3)mm(2)/s, respectively. The mean ADC values of hemorrhagic and non-hemorrhagic regions in the hemorrhagic plaque group were (0.985 ± 0.376) × 10(-3)mm(2)/s and (1.480 ± 0.465) × 10(-3)mm(2)/s, respectively. The differences between the hemorrhagic plaque and non-hemorrhagic plaque, hemorrhagic region and non-hemorrhagic region in hemorrhagic plaque, and the hemorrhagic region in the hemorrhagic plaque and IMH of artery dissection were significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: DWI may be a useful complement to conventional MR imaging for identifying haemorrhage of carotid plaques and differentiate IMHs from IPH. KEY POINTS: • ADC values of IPH are lower than the plaque without IPH. • DWI might be a useful complement to identify IPH. • IMH may be differentiated from IPH by using DWI.
Authors: U Sadat; Z Teng; V E Young; S R Walsh; Z Y Li; M J Graves; K Varty; J H Gillard Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2010-08-17 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Seong-Eun Kim; Gerald S Treiman; John A Roberts; Eun-Kee Jeong; Xianfeng Shi; J Rock Hadley; Dennis L Parker Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Baocheng Chu; Annette Kampschulte; Marina S Ferguson; William S Kerwin; Vasily L Yarnykh; Kevin D O'Brien; Nayak L Polissar; Thomas S Hatsukami; Chun Yuan Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Alan R Moody; Rachael E Murphy; Paul S Morgan; Anne L Martel; G S Delay; Steve Allder; Shane T MacSweeney; William G Tennant; John Gladman; John Lowe; Beverley J Hunt Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-06-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J Scott McNally; Peter J Hinckley; Akihiko Sakata; Laura B Eisenmenger; Seong-Eun Kim; Adam H De Havenon; Edward P Quigley; Eli Iacob; Gerald S Treiman; Dennis L Parker Journal: Stroke Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: G Adam; J Darcourt; M Roques; M Ferrier; R Gramada; Z Meluchova; S Patsoura; A Viguier; C Cognard; V Larrue; F Bonneville Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J Scott McNally; Seong-Eun Kim; Jason Mendes; J Rock Hadley; Akihiko Sakata; Adam H De Havenon; Gerald S Treiman; Dennis L Parker Journal: Magn Reson Insights Date: 2017-03-07
Authors: Mohammad Almohammad; Mete Dadak; Friedrich Götz; Frank Donnerstag; Anita Blanka Tryc; Nima Mahmoudi; Mike P Wattjes Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 2.995