Tobias Greve1, Nico Sollmann2,3, Andreas Hock4, Silke Hey4, Velmurugan Gnanaprakasam4, Marco Nijenhuis4, Claus Zimmer2, Jan S Kirschke2,3. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany. greve.tobias@gmail.com. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany. 3. TUM-Neuroimaging Center, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. 4. Health Systems Philips Switzerland, Seestr. 87, 8810, Horgen, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography (TOF-MRA) acquired with Compressed SENSE (TOF-CS) to spiral imaging (TOF-Spiral) for imaging of brain-feeding arteries. METHODS: Seventy-one patients (60.2 ± 19.5 years, 43.7% females, 28.2% with pathology) who underwent TOF-MRA after implementation of a new scanner software program enabling spiral imaging were analyzed retrospectively. TOF-CS (standard sequence; duration ~ 4 min) and the new TOF-Spiral (duration ~ 3 min) were acquired. Image evaluation (vessel image quality and detectability, diagnostic confidence (1 (diagnosis very uncertain) to 5 (diagnosis very certain)), quantitative measurement of aneurysm diameter or degree of stenosis according to North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) criteria) was performed by two readers. Quantitative assessments of pathology were compared to computed tomography angiography (CTA) or digital subtraction angiography (DSA). RESULTS: TOF-CS showed higher image quality for intraosseous and intradural segments of the internal carotid artery while TOF-Spiral better depicted small intracranial vessels like the anterior choroidal artery. All vessel pathologies were correctly identified by both readers for TOF-CS and TOF-Spiral with high confidence (TOF-CS (4.4 ± 0.6 and 4.3 ± 0.8), TOF-Spiral (4.3 ± 0.7 and 4.3 ± 0.8)) and good inter-reader agreement (Cohen's kappa > 0.8). Quantitative assessments of aneurysm size or stenosis did not significantly differ between TOF-CS or TOF-Spiral and CTA or DSA (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: TOF-Spiral for imaging of brain-feeding arteries enables reductions in scan time without drawbacks in diagnostic confidence. A combination of spiral imaging and CS may help to overcome shortcomings of both sequences alone and could further reduce acquisition times in the future. KEY POINTS: • TOF-MRA with Compressed SENSE is superior in depicting arteries at the skull base while spiral TOF-MRA is able to better depict small intracranial vessels. • Both TOF-MRA with Compressed SENSE and TOF-MRA with spiral imaging provide high diagnostic confidence for detection of pathologies of brain-feeding arteries. • Spiral TOF-MRA is faster (by 25% for the sequence used in this study) than TOF-MRA with Compressed SENSE, thus enabling clear reductions in scan time for the clinical setting.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography (TOF-MRA) acquired with Compressed SENSE (TOF-CS) to spiral imaging (TOF-Spiral) for imaging of brain-feeding arteries. METHODS: Seventy-one patients (60.2 ± 19.5 years, 43.7% females, 28.2% with pathology) who underwent TOF-MRA after implementation of a new scanner software program enabling spiral imaging were analyzed retrospectively. TOF-CS (standard sequence; duration ~ 4 min) and the new TOF-Spiral (duration ~ 3 min) were acquired. Image evaluation (vessel image quality and detectability, diagnostic confidence (1 (diagnosis very uncertain) to 5 (diagnosis very certain)), quantitative measurement of aneurysm diameter or degree of stenosis according to North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) criteria) was performed by two readers. Quantitative assessments of pathology were compared to computed tomography angiography (CTA) or digital subtraction angiography (DSA). RESULTS: TOF-CS showed higher image quality for intraosseous and intradural segments of the internal carotid artery while TOF-Spiral better depicted small intracranial vessels like the anterior choroidal artery. All vessel pathologies were correctly identified by both readers for TOF-CS and TOF-Spiral with high confidence (TOF-CS (4.4 ± 0.6 and 4.3 ± 0.8), TOF-Spiral (4.3 ± 0.7 and 4.3 ± 0.8)) and good inter-reader agreement (Cohen's kappa > 0.8). Quantitative assessments of aneurysm size or stenosis did not significantly differ between TOF-CS or TOF-Spiral and CTA or DSA (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: TOF-Spiral for imaging of brain-feeding arteries enables reductions in scan time without drawbacks in diagnostic confidence. A combination of spiral imaging and CS may help to overcome shortcomings of both sequences alone and could further reduce acquisition times in the future. KEY POINTS: • TOF-MRA with Compressed SENSE is superior in depicting arteries at the skull base while spiral TOF-MRA is able to better depict small intracranial vessels. • Both TOF-MRA with Compressed SENSE and TOF-MRA with spiral imaging provide high diagnostic confidence for detection of pathologies of brain-feeding arteries. • Spiral TOF-MRA is faster (by 25% for the sequence used in this study) than TOF-MRA with Compressed SENSE, thus enabling clear reductions in scan time for the clinical setting.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cerebral arteries; Intracranial embolism and thrombosis; Magnetic resonance angiography; Magnetic resonance imaging; Stroke
Authors: Shreyas S Vasanawala; Marcus T Alley; Brian A Hargreaves; Richard A Barth; John M Pauly; Michael Lustig Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-06-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: T J Kaufmann; J Huston; H J Cloft; J Mandrekar; L Gray; M A Bernstein; J L Atkinson; D F Kallmes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Paul Eichinger; Andreas Hock; Simon Schön; Christine Preibisch; Jan S Kirschke; Mark Mühlau; Claus Zimmer; Benedikt Wiestler Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: J Ding; Y Duan; Z Zhuo; Y Yuan; G Zhang; Q Song; B Gao; B Zhang; M Wang; L Yang; Y Hou; J Yuan; C Feng; J Wang; L Lin; Y Liu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Donghyun Kim; Young Jin Heo; Hae Woong Jeong; Jin Wook Baek; Gi Won Shin; Sung-Chul Jin; Hye Jin Baek; Kyeong Hwa Ryu; Kang Soo Kim; InSeong Kim Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2021-01-18
Authors: Thomas Sartoretti; Elisabeth Sartoretti; Árpád Schwenk; Luuk van Smoorenburg; Manoj Mannil; André Euler; Anton S Becker; Alex Alfieri; Arash Najafi; Christoph A Binkert; Michael Wyss; Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 3.240