Ruth P Lim1, Emma Hornsey2, Dinesh Ranatunga3, Huming Hao4, Julie Smith2, Tim Spelman5, Jason Chuen6, Mark Goodwin3. 1. Department of Radiology, Austin Health, PO Box 555, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia; Department of Radiology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia; Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. Electronic address: ruth.lim@austin.org.au. 2. Department of Radiology, Austin Health, PO Box 555, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia. 3. Department of Radiology, Austin Health, PO Box 555, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia; Department of Radiology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. 4. Department of Surgery, Austin Health, PO Box 555, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia. 5. Centre for Population Health, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia. 6. Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia; Department of Surgery, Austin Health, PO Box 555, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess feasibility, image quality and measured venous caliber of non-contrast MRV (NC-MRV) of central and upper extremity veins, compared to contrast-enhanced MRV (CE-MRV) and ultrasound (US) in healthy volunteers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 10 subjects underwent NC-MRV and CE-MRV at 1.5 T, with comparison to US. Two radiologists evaluated MRI for image quality (IQ) and venous caliber. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: NC-MRV is feasible, with inferior IQ but comparable venous caliber measurements CE-MRV (mean 7.9±4.58 mm vs. 7.83±4.62, p=0.13). Slightly larger upper limb caliber measurements were derived for NC-MRV and CE-MRV compared to US (NC-MRV 5.2±1.8 mm, CE-MRV 4.9±1.6 mm, US 4.5±1.8 mm, both p<0.001).
PURPOSE: To assess feasibility, image quality and measured venous caliber of non-contrast MRV (NC-MRV) of central and upper extremity veins, compared to contrast-enhanced MRV (CE-MRV) and ultrasound (US) in healthy volunteers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 10 subjects underwent NC-MRV and CE-MRV at 1.5 T, with comparison to US. Two radiologists evaluated MRI for image quality (IQ) and venous caliber. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: NC-MRV is feasible, with inferior IQ but comparable venous caliber measurements CE-MRV (mean 7.9±4.58 mm vs. 7.83±4.62, p=0.13). Slightly larger upper limb caliber measurements were derived for NC-MRV and CE-MRV compared to US (NC-MRV 5.2±1.8 mm, CE-MRV 4.9±1.6 mm, US 4.5±1.8 mm, both p<0.001).
Authors: Puja Shahrouki; John M Moriarty; Sarah N Khan; Biraj Bista; Stephen T Kee; Brian G DeRubertis; Takegawa Yoshida; Kim-Lien Nguyen; J Paul Finn Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 5.364