Quantitative contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of peripheral arterial disease: a comparative study versus standard digital angiography

Objective The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of semiautomated analysis of contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in patients Who have undergone standard angiographic evaluation for peripheral vascular disease (PVD). Background Magnetic resonance angiography is an important tool for evaluating PVD. Although this technique is both safe and noninvasive, the accuracy and reproducibility of quantitative measurements of disease severity using MRA in the clinical setting have not been fully investigated. Methods 43 lesions in 13 patients who underwent both MRA and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) of iliac and common femoral arteries within 6 months were analyzed using quantitative magnetic resonance angiography (QMRA) and quantitative vascular analysis (QVA). Analysis was repeated by a second operator and by the same operator in approximately 1 month time. Results QMRA underestimated percent diameter stenosis (%DS) compared to measurements made with QVA by 2.47%. Limits of agreement between the two methods were +/- 9.14%. Interobserver variability in measurements of %DS were +/- 12.58% for QMRA and +/- 10.04% for QVA. Intraobserver variability of %DS for QMRA was +/- 4.6% and for QVA was +/- 8.46%. Conclusions QMRA displays a high level of agreement to QVA when used to determine stenosis severity in iliac and common femoral arteries. Similar levels of interobserver and intraobserver variability are present with each method. Overall, QMRA represents a useful method to quantify severity of PVD.