Gesine Knobloch1, Marie-Teres Lauff2, Sebastian Hirsch2, Carsten Schwenke3, Bernd Hamm2, Moritz Wagner2. 1. Department of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité Campus Mitte, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. gesine.knobloch@charite.de. 2. Department of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité Campus Mitte, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. 3. SCO:SSiS Statistical Consulting, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare 3D flow-dependent subtractive MRA vs. 2D flow-independent non-subtractive MRA for assessment of the calf arteries at 3 Tesla. METHODS: Forty-two patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease underwent nonenhanced MRA of calf arteries at 3 Tesla with 3D flow-dependent subtractive MRA (fast spin echo sequence; 3D-FSE-MRA) and 2D flow-independent non-subtractive MRA (balanced steady-state-free-precession sequence; 2D-bSSFP-MRA). Moreover, all patients underwent contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) as standard-of-reference. Two readers performed a per-segment evaluation for image quality (4 = excellent to 0 = non-diagnostic) and severity of stenosis. RESULTS: Image quality scores of 2D-bSSFP-MRA were significantly higher compared to 3D-FSE-MRA (medians across readers: 4 vs. 3; p < 0.0001) with lower rates of non-diagnostic vessel segments on 2D-bSSFP-MRA (reader 1: <1 % vs. 15 %; reader 2: 1 % vs. 29 %; p < 0.05). Diagnostic performance of 2D-bSSFP-MRA and 3D-FSE-MRA across readers showed sensitivities of 89 % (214/240) vs. 70 % (168/240), p = 0.0153; specificities: 91 % (840/926) vs. 63 % (585/926), p < 0.0001; and diagnostic accuracies of 90 % (1054/1166) vs. 65 % (753/1166), p < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: 2D flow-independent non-subtractive MRA (2D-bSSFP-MRA) is a robust nonenhanced MRA technique for assessment of the calf arteries at 3 Tesla with significantly higher image quality and diagnostic accuracy compared to 3D flow-dependent subtractive MRA (3D-FSE-MRA). KEY POINTS: • 2D flow-independent non-subtractive MRA (2D-bSSFP-MRA) is a robust NE-MRA technique at 3T • 2D-bSSFP-MRA outperforms 3D flow-dependent subtractive MRA (3D-FSE-MRA) as NE-MRA of calf arteries • 2D-bSSFP-MRA is a promising alternative to CE-MRA for calf PAOD evaluation.
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare 3D flow-dependent subtractive MRA vs. 2D flow-independent non-subtractive MRA for assessment of the calf arteries at 3 Tesla. METHODS: Forty-two patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease underwent nonenhanced MRA of calf arteries at 3 Tesla with 3D flow-dependent subtractive MRA (fast spin echo sequence; 3D-FSE-MRA) and 2D flow-independent non-subtractive MRA (balanced steady-state-free-precession sequence; 2D-bSSFP-MRA). Moreover, all patients underwent contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) as standard-of-reference. Two readers performed a per-segment evaluation for image quality (4 = excellent to 0 = non-diagnostic) and severity of stenosis. RESULTS: Image quality scores of 2D-bSSFP-MRA were significantly higher compared to 3D-FSE-MRA (medians across readers: 4 vs. 3; p < 0.0001) with lower rates of non-diagnostic vessel segments on 2D-bSSFP-MRA (reader 1: <1 % vs. 15 %; reader 2: 1 % vs. 29 %; p < 0.05). Diagnostic performance of 2D-bSSFP-MRA and 3D-FSE-MRA across readers showed sensitivities of 89 % (214/240) vs. 70 % (168/240), p = 0.0153; specificities: 91 % (840/926) vs. 63 % (585/926), p < 0.0001; and diagnostic accuracies of 90 % (1054/1166) vs. 65 % (753/1166), p < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: 2D flow-independent non-subtractive MRA (2D-bSSFP-MRA) is a robust nonenhanced MRA technique for assessment of the calf arteries at 3 Tesla with significantly higher image quality and diagnostic accuracy compared to 3D flow-dependent subtractive MRA (3D-FSE-MRA). KEY POINTS: • 2D flow-independent non-subtractive MRA (2D-bSSFP-MRA) is a robust NE-MRA technique at 3T • 2D-bSSFP-MRA outperforms 3D flow-dependent subtractive MRA (3D-FSE-MRA) as NE-MRA of calf arteries • 2D-bSSFP-MRA is a promising alternative to CE-MRA for calf PAOD evaluation.
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: 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: Andreas Gutzeit; Reto Sutter; Johannes M Froehlich; Justus E Roos; Thomas Sautter; Erik Schoch; Barbara Giger; Michael Wyss; Nicole Graf; Constantin von Weymarn; Regula Jenelten; Christoph A Binkert; Klaus Hergan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-05-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Oliver K Mohrs; Steffen E Petersen; Martin C Heidt; Thomas Schulze; Peter Schmitt; Sabine Bergemann; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-08-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Annette Hentsch; Manuela A Aschauer; Jörn O Balzer; Joachim Brossmann; Hans P Busch; Kirsten Davis; Philippe Douek; Franz Ebner; Jos M A van Engelshoven; Michaela Gregor; Christian Kersting; Patrick R Knüsel; Edward Leen; Tim Leiner; Christian Loewe; Simon McPherson; Peter Reimer; Fritz K W Schäfer; Matthias Taupitz; Siegfried A Thurnher; Bernd Tombach; Robin Wegener; Dominik Weishaupt; James F M Meaney Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-03-25 Impact factor: 5.315
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