4.5 Article

Evaluating Peripheral Arterial Disease With Unenhanced Quiescent-Interval Single-Shot MR Angiography at 3 T

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
Volume 202, Issue 4, Pages 886-893

Publisher

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.13.11243

Keywords

angiography; MR angiography (MRA); peripheral arterial disease (PAD); quiescent-interval single-shot (QISS) MR angiography

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01HL096916, EH09-203-51]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to assess the diagnostic performance of quiescent-interval single-shot (QISS) MR angiography (MRA) at 3 T for the evaluation of chronic lower limb ischemia. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. For this prospective study, 25 patients referred for lower extremity angiography for suspected or known chronic peripheral arterial disease were imaged on a 3-T system using QISS MRA. Contrast-enhanced MRA of the lower extremities was acquired at 3 T for each patient at the time of the initial visit and served as the noninvasive reference standard. Two blinded reviewers separately graded the degree of arterial stenosis. The sensitivity and specificity of QISS MRA for the determination of significant (>= 50%) stenosis were calculated against contrast-enhanced MRA. Subsequent selective digital subtraction angiography (DSA) was performed and reviewed in nine patients. RESULTS. QISS MRA exhibited diagnostic performance nearly equivalent to that of contrast-enhanced MRA and also showed strong correlation with findings on DSA. Segment-based analysis revealed that, for the two reviewers, QISS MRA had sensitivities of 95.9% (142 of 148 segments) and 93.5% (145 of 155 segments) and specificities of 98.5% (595 of 604 segments) and 97.0% (578 of 596 segments) on comparison with contrast-enhanced MRA. CONCLUSION. QISS MRA maintains high diagnostic performance at 3 T despite the challenges inherent to image acquisition at higher field strengths.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available