N J Lee1, M S Chung1, S C Jung2, H S Kim1, C-G Choi1, S J Kim1, D H Lee1, D C Suh1, S U Kwon3, D-W Kang3, J S Kim3. 1. From the Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology (N.J.L., M.S.C., S.C.J., H.S.K., C.-G.C., S.J.K., D.H.L., D.C.S.). 2. From the Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology (N.J.L., M.S.C., S.C.J., H.S.K., C.-G.C., S.J.K., D.H.L., D.C.S.) dynamics79@gmail.com. 3. Department of Neurology (S.U.K., D.-W.K., J.S.K.), University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: High-resolution MR imaging has recently been introduced as a promising diagnostic modality in intracranial artery disease. Our aim was to compare high-resolution MR imaging with digital subtraction angiography for the characterization and diagnosis of various intracranial artery diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven patients who had undergone both high-resolution MR imaging and DSA for intracranial artery disease were enrolled in our study (August 2011 to April 2014). The time interval between the high-resolution MR imaging and DSA was within 1 month. The degree of stenosis and the minimal luminal diameter were independently measured by 2 observers in both DSA and high-resolution MR imaging, and the results were compared. Two observers independently diagnosed intracranial artery diseases on DSA and high-resolution MR imaging. The time interval between the diagnoses on DSA and high-resolution MR imaging was 2 weeks. Interobserver diagnostic agreement for each technique and intermodality diagnostic agreement for each observer were acquired. RESULTS: High-resolution MR imaging showed moderate-to-excellent agreement (interclass correlation coefficient = 0.892-0.949; κ = 0.548-0.614) and significant correlations (R = 0.766-892) with DSA on the degree of stenosis and minimal luminal diameter. The interobserver diagnostic agreement was good for DSA (κ = 0.643) and excellent for high-resolution MR imaging (κ = 0.818). The intermodality diagnostic agreement was good (κ = 0.704) for observer 1 and moderate (κ = 0.579) for observer 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: High-resolution MR imaging may be an imaging method comparable with DSA for the characterization and diagnosis of various intracranial artery diseases.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: High-resolution MR imaging has recently been introduced as a promising diagnostic modality in intracranial artery disease. Our aim was to compare high-resolution MR imaging with digital subtraction angiography for the characterization and diagnosis of various intracranial artery diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven patients who had undergone both high-resolution MR imaging and DSA for intracranial artery disease were enrolled in our study (August 2011 to April 2014). The time interval between the high-resolution MR imaging and DSA was within 1 month. The degree of stenosis and the minimal luminal diameter were independently measured by 2 observers in both DSA and high-resolution MR imaging, and the results were compared. Two observers independently diagnosed intracranial artery diseases on DSA and high-resolution MR imaging. The time interval between the diagnoses on DSA and high-resolution MR imaging was 2 weeks. Interobserver diagnostic agreement for each technique and intermodality diagnostic agreement for each observer were acquired. RESULTS: High-resolution MR imaging showed moderate-to-excellent agreement (interclass correlation coefficient = 0.892-0.949; κ = 0.548-0.614) and significant correlations (R = 0.766-892) with DSA on the degree of stenosis and minimal luminal diameter. The interobserver diagnostic agreement was good for DSA (κ = 0.643) and excellent for high-resolution MR imaging (κ = 0.818). The intermodality diagnostic agreement was good (κ = 0.704) for observer 1 and moderate (κ = 0.579) for observer 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: High-resolution MR imaging may be an imaging method comparable with DSA for the characterization and diagnosis of various intracranial artery diseases.
Authors: R L Sacco; B Boden-Albala; R Gan; X Chen; D E Kargman; S Shea; M C Paik; W A Hauser Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1998-02-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Mahmud Mossa-Basha; William D Hwang; Adam De Havenon; Daniel Hippe; Niranjan Balu; Kyra J Becker; David T Tirschwell; Thomas Hatsukami; Yoshimi Anzai; Chun Yuan Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: R H Swartz; S S Bhuta; R I Farb; R Agid; R A Willinsky; K G Terbrugge; J Butany; B A Wasserman; D M Johnstone; F L Silver; D J Mikulis Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-02-17 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: E C Obusez; F Hui; R A Hajj-Ali; R Cerejo; L H Calabrese; T Hammad; S E Jones Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-04-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Qi Liu; Jun Huang; Andrew J Degnan; Shiyue Chen; Jonathan H Gillard; Zhongzhao Teng; Jianping Lu Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-05-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Ji Eun Park; Seung Chai Jung; Sang Hun Lee; Ji Young Jeon; Ji Ye Lee; Ho Sung Kim; Choong-Gon Choi; Sang Joon Kim; Deok Hee Lee; Seon-Ok Kim; Sun U Kwon; Dong-Wha Kang; Jong S Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: A S Al-Smadi; R N Abdalla; A H Elmokadem; A Shaibani; M C Hurley; M B Potts; B S Jahromi; T J Carroll; S A Ansari Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Basar Sarikaya; Charles Colip; William D Hwang; Daniel S Hippe; Chengcheng Zhu; Jie Sun; Niranjan Balu; Chun Yuan; Mahmud Mossa-Basha Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Jae W Song; Athanasios Pavlou; Morgan P Burke; Haochang Shou; Kofi-Buaku Atsina; Jiayu Xiao; Laurie A Loevner; David Mankoff; Zhaoyang Fan; Scott E Kasner Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 2.995