Akos Varga-Szemes1, Julian L Wichmann2, U Joseph Schoepf3, Pal Suranyi4, Carlo N De Cecco1, Giuseppe Muscogiuri5, Damiano Caruso6, Ricardo T Yamada1, Sheldon E Litwin7, Christian Tesche8, Taylor M Duguay1, Shivraman Giri9, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart10, Thomas M Todoran7. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina; Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. Electronic address: schoepf@musc.edu. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina; Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome "Sapienza," Rome, Italy. 6. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina; Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, University of Rome "Sapienza," Rome, Italy. 7. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 8. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina; Department of Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Heart Center Munich-Bogenhausen, Munich, Germany. 9. Siemens Medical Solutions, Chicago, Illinois. 10. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina; University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Medical Imaging-North East Netherlands, Department of Radiology, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the image quality and diagnostic accuracy of noncontrast quiescent-interval single-shot (QISS) magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) versus iodine-contrast computed tomography angiography (CTA) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD), with invasive digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard. BACKGROUND: QISS is a recently introduced noncontrast MRA technique. Although the diagnostic accuracy of QISS is reportedly similar to that of contrast-enhanced MRA, its performance compared with contrast-enhanced CTA, the most frequently used noninvasive modality for evaluation of PAD, is unknown. METHODS: Thirty patients (66 ± 7 years of age) with PAD underwent lower extremity CTA with third-generation dual-source dual-energy CT and 1.5-T MRA using a prototype noncontrast QISS sequence. DSA was performed within 50 days. The abdominal aorta and lower extremity run-off were imaged. Eighteen arterial segments were analyzed. Subjective image quality (3-point Likert scale) and stenosis (5-point grading) were evaluated by 2 observers and compared using the Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of MRA and CTA for >50% stenosis detection were compared using the McNemar-test. RESULTS: Of 540 segments, 15 (2.8%) and 42 (7.8%) inconclusive segments were excluded from MRA and CTA analysis, respectively (p = 0.0006). The DSA results were available for 410 of the remaining segments. Overall subjective image quality was rated similarly with QISS-MRA (2.52 [95% confidence interval: 2.46 to 2.57]) and CTA (2.49 [95% confidence interval: 2.43 to 2.55]; p = 0.5062). The sensitivity and specificity of MRA for >50% stenosis were 84.9% and 97.2%, respectively, similar to those of CTA (87.3% and 95.4%, respectively). Interobserver agreement for stenosis detection was excellent for MRA (κ > 0.81) and CTA (κ > 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Noncontrast QISS-MRA provides high diagnostic accuracy compared with DSA, while being less prone to image artifacts than CTA. QISS better visualizes heavily calcified segments with impaired flow. QISS-MRA obviates the need for contrast administration in PAD patients.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the image quality and diagnostic accuracy of noncontrast quiescent-interval single-shot (QISS) magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) versus iodine-contrast computed tomography angiography (CTA) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD), with invasive digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard. BACKGROUND: QISS is a recently introduced noncontrast MRA technique. Although the diagnostic accuracy of QISS is reportedly similar to that of contrast-enhanced MRA, its performance compared with contrast-enhanced CTA, the most frequently used noninvasive modality for evaluation of PAD, is unknown. METHODS: Thirty patients (66 ± 7 years of age) with PAD underwent lower extremity CTA with third-generation dual-source dual-energy CT and 1.5-T MRA using a prototype noncontrast QISS sequence. DSA was performed within 50 days. The abdominal aorta and lower extremity run-off were imaged. Eighteen arterial segments were analyzed. Subjective image quality (3-point Likert scale) and stenosis (5-point grading) were evaluated by 2 observers and compared using the Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of MRA and CTA for >50% stenosis detection were compared using the McNemar-test. RESULTS: Of 540 segments, 15 (2.8%) and 42 (7.8%) inconclusive segments were excluded from MRA and CTA analysis, respectively (p = 0.0006). The DSA results were available for 410 of the remaining segments. Overall subjective image quality was rated similarly with QISS-MRA (2.52 [95% confidence interval: 2.46 to 2.57]) and CTA (2.49 [95% confidence interval: 2.43 to 2.55]; p = 0.5062). The sensitivity and specificity of MRA for >50% stenosis were 84.9% and 97.2%, respectively, similar to those of CTA (87.3% and 95.4%, respectively). Interobserver agreement for stenosis detection was excellent for MRA (κ > 0.81) and CTA (κ > 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Noncontrast QISS-MRA provides high diagnostic accuracy compared with DSA, while being less prone to image artifacts than CTA. QISS better visualizes heavily calcified segments with impaired flow. QISS-MRA obviates the need for contrast administration in PAD patients.
Authors: Domenico De Santis; Carlo N De Cecco; U Joseph Schoepf; John W Nance; Ricardo T Yamada; Brooke A Thomas; Katharina Otani; Brian E Jacobs; D Alan Turner; Julian L Wichmann; Marwen Eid; Akos Varga-Szemes; Damiano Caruso; Katharine L Grant; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas J Vogl; Andrea Laghi; Moritz H Albrecht Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-02-25 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: Mathias Pamminger; Gert Klug; Christof Kranewitter; Martin Reindl; Sebastian J Reinstadler; Benjamin Henninger; Christina Tiller; Magdalena Holzknecht; Christian Kremser; Axel Bauer; Werner Jaschke; Bernhard Metzler; Agnes Mayr Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Aryan Zahergivar; Madison Kocher; Jeffrey Waltz; Ismail Kabakus; Jordan Chamberlin; Selcuk Akkaya; Ali M Agha; U Joseph Schoepf; Jeremy R Burt Journal: Heliyon Date: 2021-03-18