Comparison of 2D and 3D quiescent-interval slice-selective non-contrast MR angiography in patients with peripheral artery disease

Objective To evaluate the potential clinical benefit of the superior spatial resolution of 3D prototype thin-slab stack-of-stars (tsSOS) quiescent-interval slice-selective (QISS) MRA over standard 2D-QISS MRA for the detection peripheral artery disease (PAD), using computed tomography angiography (CTA) as reference. Materials and methods Twenty-three patients (70 +/- 8 years, 18 men) with PAD who had previously undergone run-off CTA were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent non-contrast MRA using 2D-QISS and tsSOS-QISS at 1.5 T. Eighteen arterial segments were evaluated for subjective and objective image quality (normalized signal-to-noise, nSNR), vessel sharpness, and area under the curve (AUC) for > 50% stenosis detection. Results Overall subjective image quality ratings for the entire run-off were not different between tsSOS-QISS and 2D-QISS (3 [3; 4] vs 4 [3; 4], respectively; P = 0.813). Sharpness of primary branch vessels demonstrated improved image quality using tsSOS-QISS compared with 2D-QISS (4 [3; 4] vs 3 [2; 3], P = 0.008). Objective image quality measures were not different between 2D-QISS and tsSOS-QISS (nSNR 5.0 +/- 1.9 vs 4.2 +/- 1.8; P = 0.132). AUCs for significant stenosis detection by tsSOS-QISS and 2D-QISS were 0.877 and 0.856, respectively (P = 0.336). Discussion The prototype 3D tsSOS-QISS technique provides similar accuracy in patients with PAD to a standard commercially available 2D-QISS technique, indicating that the use of relatively thick slices does not limit the diagnostic performance of 2D-QISS. However, subjective image quality for branch vessel depiction is improved using the 3D approach.

Automated summary

The 3D prototype thin-slab stack-of-stars (tsSOS) quiescent-interval slice-selective (QISS) MRA technique showed better image quality for branch vessels compared to the standard 2D-QISS technique in diagnosing peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, there was no significant difference in objective image quality between the two techniques.