Christopher J Hanrahan1, Marc D Lindley2, Michelle Mueller3, Daniel Kim4, Daniel Sommers2, Glen Morrell2, Andrew Redd5, Kristi Carlston2, Vivian S Lee2. 1. Utah Center for Advanced Imaging Research, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Room 1A71, Salt Lake City, UT 84132. Electronic address: christopher.hanrahan@hsc.utah.edu. 2. Utah Center for Advanced Imaging Research, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Room 1A71, Salt Lake City, UT 84132. 3. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Department of Surgery, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Room 1A71, Salt Lake City, UT 84132. 4. Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Room 1A71, Salt Lake City, UT 84132.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of established non-gadolinium (Gd)-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography protocols with Gd-enhanced MR angiography at 3T for evaluating lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From February 2014 to 2015, 20 patients with PAD and intermittent claudication (16 men; age range, 51-76 y; Fontaine stage II) underwent 3-station (abdominopelvic, thigh, and calf) non-Gd MR angiography and bolus-chase Gd MR angiography protocols performed at 3T (Siemens Tim Trio), including quiescent-interval single-shot (QISS) MR angiography for all 3 stations and a combination of quadruple inversion recovery (QIR) MR angiography for the abdominopelvic station and electrocardiogram-gated fast spin echo (ECG-FSE) MR angiography for the extremities. Two radiologists independently evaluated vessel segments for vascular stenosis, diagnosis confidence, graft presence, and Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II classification for each station. Diagnostic accuracies and κ agreement were assessed. RESULTS: Of 573 vascular segments imaged, 16.9% (97/573, 19/20 patients) demonstrated hemodynamically significant abnormalities. Reader confidence was sufficient for diagnosis in 98% of segments with Gd MR angiography, 93% with QIR/ECG-FSE, and 95% with QISS. Overall reader confidence was higher with QISS than QIR/ECG-FSE within all 3 stations combined (P < .05). With low-confidence segments treated as misdiagnosis, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, and κ agreement for all 3 stations combined were 81.4/87.2/57.0/95.8/86.2%/0.578 for QIR/ECG-FSE and 75.0/90.6/61.6/94.7/88.0%/0.597 for QISS. Using TASC II criteria to assess severity, QISS and QIR/ECG-FSE had no statistical difference in agreement with Gd MR angiography. CONCLUSIONS: QISS and QIR/ECG-FSE MR angiography protocols demonstrate comparable diagnostic accuracies with high specificity. Either protocol provides an alternative to Gd MR angiography at 3T for patients with PAD.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of established non-gadolinium (Gd)-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography protocols with Gd-enhanced MR angiography at 3T for evaluating lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From February 2014 to 2015, 20 patients with PAD and intermittent claudication (16 men; age range, 51-76 y; Fontaine stage II) underwent 3-station (abdominopelvic, thigh, and calf) non-Gd MR angiography and bolus-chase Gd MR angiography protocols performed at 3T (Siemens Tim Trio), including quiescent-interval single-shot (QISS) MR angiography for all 3 stations and a combination of quadruple inversion recovery (QIR) MR angiography for the abdominopelvic station and electrocardiogram-gated fast spin echo (ECG-FSE) MR angiography for the extremities. Two radiologists independently evaluated vessel segments for vascular stenosis, diagnosis confidence, graft presence, and Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II classification for each station. Diagnostic accuracies and κ agreement were assessed. RESULTS: Of 573 vascular segments imaged, 16.9% (97/573, 19/20 patients) demonstrated hemodynamically significant abnormalities. Reader confidence was sufficient for diagnosis in 98% of segments with Gd MR angiography, 93% with QIR/ECG-FSE, and 95% with QISS. Overall reader confidence was higher with QISS than QIR/ECG-FSE within all 3 stations combined (P < .05). With low-confidence segments treated as misdiagnosis, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, and κ agreement for all 3 stations combined were 81.4/87.2/57.0/95.8/86.2%/0.578 for QIR/ECG-FSE and 75.0/90.6/61.6/94.7/88.0%/0.597 for QISS. Using TASC II criteria to assess severity, QISS and QIR/ECG-FSE had no statistical difference in agreement with Gd MR angiography. CONCLUSIONS: QISS and QIR/ECG-FSE MR angiography protocols demonstrate comparable diagnostic accuracies with high specificity. Either protocol provides an alternative to Gd MR angiography at 3T for patients with PAD.
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