Vincent G Helyar1, Yuri Gupta2,3, Lyndall Blakeway4, Geoff Charles-Edwards4, Konstantinos Katsanos5, Narayan Karunanithy2. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Basingstoke , UK. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust , London , UK. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust , Brighton , UK. 4. 4 Department of Medical Physics, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust , London , UK. 5. 5 Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University Hospital of Patras , Patras , Greece.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the use of balanced steady-state free precession MRI (bSSFP-MRI) in the diagnostic work-up of patients undergoing interventional deep venous reconstruction (I-DVR). Intravenous digital subtraction angiography (IVDSA) was used as the gold-standard for comparison to assess disease extent and severity. METHODS: A retrospective comparison of bSSFP-MRI to IVDSA was performed in all patients undergoing both examinations for treatment planning prior to I-DVR. The severity of disease in each venous segment was graded by two board-certified radiologists working independently, according to a predetermined classification system. RESULTS: In total, 44 patients (225 venous segments) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 156 abnormal venous segments were diagnosed using bSSFP-MRI compared with 151 using IVDSA. The prevalence of disease was higher in the iliac and femoral segments (range, 79.6-88.6%). Overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and the diagnostic ratio for bSSFP-MRI were 99.3%, 91.9%, 12.3, 0.007 and 1700, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study supports the use of non-contrast balanced SSFP-MRI in the assessment of the deep veins of the lower limb prior to I-DVR. The technique offers an accurate, fast and non-invasive alternative to IVDSA. Advances in Knowledge: Although balanced SSFP-MRI is commonly used in cardiac imaging, its use elsewhere is limited and its use in evaluating the deep veins prior to interventional reconstruction is not described. Our study demonstrates the usefulness of this technique in the work-up of patients awaiting interventional venous reconstruction compared with the current gold standard.
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the use of balanced steady-state free precession MRI (bSSFP-MRI) in the diagnostic work-up of patients undergoing interventional deep venous reconstruction (I-DVR). Intravenous digital subtraction angiography (IVDSA) was used as the gold-standard for comparison to assess disease extent and severity. METHODS: A retrospective comparison of bSSFP-MRI to IVDSA was performed in all patients undergoing both examinations for treatment planning prior to I-DVR. The severity of disease in each venous segment was graded by two board-certified radiologists working independently, according to a predetermined classification system. RESULTS: In total, 44 patients (225 venous segments) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 156 abnormal venous segments were diagnosed using bSSFP-MRI compared with 151 using IVDSA. The prevalence of disease was higher in the iliac and femoral segments (range, 79.6-88.6%). Overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and the diagnostic ratio for bSSFP-MRI were 99.3%, 91.9%, 12.3, 0.007 and 1700, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study supports the use of non-contrast balanced SSFP-MRI in the assessment of the deep veins of the lower limb prior to I-DVR. The technique offers an accurate, fast and non-invasive alternative to IVDSA. Advances in Knowledge: Although balanced SSFP-MRI is commonly used in cardiac imaging, its use elsewhere is limited and its use in evaluating the deep veins prior to interventional reconstruction is not described. Our study demonstrates the usefulness of this technique in the work-up of patients awaiting interventional venous reconstruction compared with the current gold standard.
Authors: Afina S Glas; Jeroen G Lijmer; Martin H Prins; Gouke J Bonsel; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Govind B Chavhan; Paul S Babyn; Bhavin G Jankharia; Hai-Ling M Cheng; Manohar M Shroff Journal: Radiographics Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Karla Maria Treitl; Marcus Treitl; Hendrik Kooijman-Kurfuerst; Nora N Kammer; Eva Coppenrath; Elena Suderland; Michael Czihal; Ulrich Hoffmann; Maximilian F Reiser; Tobias Saam Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Justinas Silickas; Stephen A Black; Alkystis Phinikaridou; Adam M Gwozdz; Alberto Smith; Prakash Saha Journal: Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J Date: 2018 Jul-Sep