Caiyun Shi1, Guoxi Xie2,3, Dong Liang1, Haifeng Wang1, Yi Huang4, Yanan Ren5, Yong Xue4, Hanwei Chen4, Shi Su1, Xin Liu1. 1. Shenzhen Key Laboratory for MRI, Lauterbur Research Center for Biomedical Imaging, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen 518055, China. 2. Department of Radiology, The Six Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Qingyuan 511518, China. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 511436, China. 4. Department of Radiology, Guangzhou Panyu Central Hospital, Guangzhou 511400, China. 5. Department of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: MR-compatible metallic stents have been widely used for the treatment of arterial occlusive diseases. However, conventional MR techniques have difficulty in accurately localizing the stent position and access the stent restenosis because of the susceptibility and radiofrequency (RF) shielding artifacts caused by the stent mesh. Previous studies have demonstrated that a susceptibility-based positive contrast MR method exhibits excellent efficacy for visualizing MR compatible metal devices. However, the method had not been evaluated in the visualization of stents and for the assessment of stent restenosis. METHODS: The susceptibility-based positive contrast MR method was used to visualize the nitinol stents and assess the stent restenosis by comparing two typical MR positive contrast techniques, i.e., susceptibility gradient mapping using the original resolution (SUMO) and the gradient echo acquisition for super-paramagnetic particles (GRASP) with positive contrast. RESULTS: Three sets of experiments were respectively performed to investigate the influence of stent orientation and spatial resolution on the susceptibility-based method, and to demonstrate the feasibility of the susceptibility-based method in evaluating the stent restenosis comparing to the two typical MR positive contrast methods, GRASP and SUMO. CONCLUSIONS: The susceptibility-based method provides better visualization and localization of the stent than SUMO and GRASP and has the capability of assessing the stent restenosis.
BACKGROUND: MR-compatible metallic stents have been widely used for the treatment of arterial occlusive diseases. However, conventional MR techniques have difficulty in accurately localizing the stent position and access the stent restenosis because of the susceptibility and radiofrequency (RF) shielding artifacts caused by the stent mesh. Previous studies have demonstrated that a susceptibility-based positive contrast MR method exhibits excellent efficacy for visualizing MR compatible metal devices. However, the method had not been evaluated in the visualization of stents and for the assessment of stent restenosis. METHODS: The susceptibility-based positive contrast MR method was used to visualize the nitinol stents and assess the stent restenosis by comparing two typical MR positive contrast techniques, i.e., susceptibility gradient mapping using the original resolution (SUMO) and the gradient echo acquisition for super-paramagnetic particles (GRASP) with positive contrast. RESULTS: Three sets of experiments were respectively performed to investigate the influence of stent orientation and spatial resolution on the susceptibility-based method, and to demonstrate the feasibility of the susceptibility-based method in evaluating the stent restenosis comparing to the two typical MR positive contrast methods, GRASP and SUMO. CONCLUSIONS: The susceptibility-based method provides better visualization and localization of the stent than SUMO and GRASP and has the capability of assessing the stent restenosis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Positive contrast; magnetic resonance imaging; stent; stent restenosis; susceptibility
Authors: Johannes Nordmeyer; Régis Gaudin; Oliver R Tann; Phillip C Lurz; Phillip Bonhoeffer; Andrew M Taylor; Vivek Muthurangu Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Venkatesh Mani; Karen C Briley-Saebo; Vitalii V Itskovich; Daniel D Samber; Zahi A Fayad Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Reza Fazel; Harlan M Krumholz; Yongfei Wang; Joseph S Ross; Jersey Chen; Henry H Ting; Nilay D Shah; Khurram Nasir; Andrew J Einstein; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vivek Muthurangu; Andrew Taylor; Rado Andriantsimiavona; Sanjeet Hegde; Marc E Miquel; Robert Tulloh; Edward Baker; Derek L G Hill; Reza S Razavi Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-08-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Aaron Sodickson; Pieter F Baeyens; Katherine P Andriole; Luciano M Prevedello; Richard D Nawfel; Richard Hanson; Ramin Khorasani Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marchelle J Bean; Pamela T Johnson; Glen S Roseborough; James H Black; Elliot K Fishman Journal: Radiographics Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333