4.6 Article

In Vivo Validation of Simultaneous Non-Contrast Angiography and intraPlaque Hemorrhage (SNAP) Magnetic Resonance Angiography: An Intracranial Artery Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149130

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [1R01HL103609]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [81271536]
  3. Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission [D111107003111007]
  4. Philips Research Europe
  5. Philips Research North America

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Simultaneous Non-contrast Angiography and intraPlaque hemorrhage (SNAP) technique was recently proposed for joint MRA and intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH) imaging. The purpose of this study is to validate SNAP's MRA performance in patients with suspected intracranial artery disease. Methods SNAP and time-of-flight (TOF) techniques with matched field of view and resolution were applied on 15 patients with suspected intracranial artery disease. Both techniques were evaluated based on their detection of luminal stenosis of bilateral middle cerebral arteries (MCA) and the delineation of smallest visible branches (SVB) of the MCA. Statistical analysis was conducted on the artery level. Results The SNAP MRA was found to provide similar stenosis detection performance when compared with TOF (Cohen's. 0.79; 95% Confidence Interval: 0.56-0.99). For the SVB comparison, SNAP was found to provide significantly better small artery delineation than TOF (p = 0.017). Inter-reader reproducibility for both measurements on SNAP was over 0.7. SNAP also detected IPH lesions on 13% of the patients. Conclusions The SNAP technique's MRA performance was optimized and compared against TOF for intracranial artery atherosclerosis imaging and was found to provide comparable stenosis detection accuracy. Along with its IPH detection capability, SNAP holds the potential to become a first-line screening tool for high risk intracranial atherosclerosis disease evaluation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据