Literature DB >> 9494485

Peripheral vascular tree stenoses: detection with subtracted and nonsubtracted MR angiography.

K Y Ho1, M W de Haan, A G Kessels, P J Kitslaar, J M van Engelshoven.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare subtracted and nonsubtracted gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography and cardiac-synchronized time-of-flight MR angiography for help in detecting pelvic-region stenoses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with intermittent claudication underwent MR angiography with a 1.5-T system; two-dimensional cardiac-synchronized time-of-flight MR angiograms and three-dimensional MR angiograms (without and with gadolinium enhancement) were obtained. Subtracted images were obtained by subtracting unenhanced data from enhanced data of identical volumes, and maximum intensity projection images were constructed, which two observers independently evaluated in blinded fashion, with conventional angiographic results as the reference standard.
RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity for grading of hemodynamically significant stenoses (> or = 50% lumen reduction) on subtracted MR angiograms were 94% and 93%, respectively. Sensitivity of subtracted images was significantly higher compared with that of time-of-flight images (P < .05) but not with that of nonsubtracted images. Contrast-to-noise ratio on subtracted images was significantly higher compared with that on nonsubtracted images (P < .05) but not with that on time-of-flight images. There was good correlation between stenosis length measurements on gadolinium-enhanced MR angiograms and those on conventional angiograms.
CONCLUSION: Subtracted MR angiography is superior to cardiac-synchronized time-of-flight MR angiography for imaging of iliac and upper femoral arteries and provides higher contrast-to-noise ratio, fewer artifacts, and easier image interpretability than nonsubtracted MR angiography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9494485     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.206.3.9494485

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  5 in total

1.  Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography: dose the test dose bolus represent the main dose bolus accurately?

Authors:  J J Lee; Y Chang; D S Kang
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2000 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 3.500

2.  Multidetector-row CT Angiography of Lower Extremities: Usefulness in the Diagnosis of and Intervention for Peripheral Arterial Disease.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Matsumoto; Masahiro Jinzaki; Kozo Sato; Yutaka Tanami; Seishi Nakatsuka; Subaru Hashimoto; Sachio Kuribayashi
Journal:  Ann Vasc Dis       Date:  2010-12-25

3.  Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of supraaortic vessels: the effect of voxel size on image quality.

Authors:  X Leclerc; L Nicol; J Y Gauvrit; V Le Thuc; D Leys; J P Pruvo
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2000 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 3.825

4.  Preliminary experience using contrast-enhanced MR angiography to assess vertebral artery structure for the follow-up of suspected dissection.

Authors:  X Leclerc; C Lucas; O Godefroy; L Nicol; A Moretti; D Leys; J P Pruvo
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  Gadobutrol-enhanced moving-table magnetic resonance angiography in patients with peripheral vascular disease: a prospective, multi-centre blinded comparison with digital subtraction angiography.

Authors:  Annette Hentsch; Manuela A Aschauer; Jörn O Balzer; Joachim Brossmann; Hans P Busch; Kirsten Davis; Philippe Douek; Franz Ebner; Jos M A van Engelshoven; Michaela Gregor; Christian Kersting; Patrick R Knüsel; Edward Leen; Tim Leiner; Christian Loewe; Simon McPherson; Peter Reimer; Fritz K W Schäfer; Matthias Taupitz; Siegfried A Thurnher; Bernd Tombach; Robin Wegener; Dominik Weishaupt; James F M Meaney
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-03-25       Impact factor: 5.315

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.