Carotid artery stenosis: intraindividual correlations of 3D time-of-flight MR angiography, contrast-enhanced MR angiography, conventional DSA, and rotational angiography for detection and grading

PURPOSE: To compare three-dimensional (3D) time-of-flight (TOF) MR angiography, contrast-enhanced MR angiography, digital subtraction angiography (DSA), and rotational angiography for depiction of stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study had Ethics Committee approval, and each patient gave written informed consent. Forty-nine patients (18 women, mean age, 67.2 years +/- 9.1 [+/- standard deviation], and 31 men, mean age, 63.1 years +/- 8.0) with symptomatic stenosis of internal carotid artery (ICA) diagnosed at duplex ultrasonography underwent transverse 3D TOF MR angiography with sliding interleaved kY acquisition and coronal contrast-enhanced MR angiography, followed by DSA and rotational angiography within 48 hours. MR angiography was performed at 1.5-T with a cervical coil. Contrast-enhanced MR angiograms were obtained after a bolus injection of 20 mL of gadobenate dimeglumine. Maximum ICA stenosis on maximum intensity projection and source images was quantified according to NASCET criteria. Correlations for 3D TOF MR angiography, contrast-enhanced MR angiography, DSA, and rotational angiography were determined by means of cross tabulation, and accuracy for detection and grading of stenoses were calculated. Data were evaluated with analysis of variance, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and McNemar test, all at significance of P < .05. RESULTS: Ninety-eight ICAs were evaluated at contrast-enhanced MR angiography, DSA, and rotational angiography, and 97 were evaluated at 3D TOF MR angiography. Correlations for contrast-enhanced MR angiography, 3D TOF MR angiography, and DSA relative to rotational angiography were r2 = 0.9332, r2 = 0.9048, and r2 = 0.9255, respectively. Lower correlation (r2 = 0.8593) was noted for contrast-enhanced MR angiography and DSA. Respective sensitivity and specificity for detection of hemodynamically relevant stenosis relative to rotational angiography were 100% and 90% for contrast-enhanced MR angiography, 95.5% and 87.2% for 3D TOF MR angiography, and 88.6% and 100% for DSA. Four of 31 severe stenoses were underestimated at DSA, and three were underestimated at contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Three severe stenoses were underestimated at 3D TOF MR angiography, and one was misclassified as occluded. Of 13 moderate (50%-69%) stenoses, one was overestimated at contrast-enhanced MR angiography, two were underestimated and three overestimated at 3D TOF MR angiography, and two were underestimated at DSA. CONCLUSION: DSA results in an underestimation of ICA stenosis compared with rotational angiography. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography correlates best with rotational angiography.     

Prospective evaluation of carotid artery stenosis: elliptic centric contrast-enhanced MR angiography and spiral CT angiography compared with digital subtraction angiography

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although digital subtraction angiography (DSA) is the reference standard for assessing carotid arteries, it is uncomfortable for patients and has a small risk of disabling stroke and death. These problems have fueled the use of spiral CT angiography and MR angiography. We prospectively compared elliptic centric contrast-enhanced MR angiography and spiral CT angiography with conventional DSA for detecting carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: Eighty carotid arteries (in 40 symptomatic patients) were assessed. Elliptic centric MR and spiral CT angiographic data were reconstructed with maximum intensity projection and multiplanar reconstruction techniques. All patients had been referred for DSA evaluation on the basis of findings at Doppler sonography, which served as a screening method (degree of stenosis > or = 70% or inconclusive results). Degree of carotid stenosis estimated by using the three modalities was compared. RESULTS: Significant correlation with DSA was found for stenosis degree for both elliptic centric MR and spiral CT angiography; however, the correlation coefficient was higher for MR than for CT angiography (r = 0.98 vs r = 0.86). Underestimation of stenoses of 70-99% occurred in one case with elliptic centric MR angiography (a 70% stenosis was underestimated as 65%) and in nine cases with spiral CT angiography, in comparison to DSA findings. Overestimation occurred in two cases with MR angiography (stenoses of 65-67% were overestimated as 70-75%). With CT, overestimation occurred in seven cases; a stenosis of 60% in one case was overestimated as 70%. Both techniques confirmed the three cases of carotid occlusion. With elliptic centric MR angiography, carotid stenoses of 70% or greater were detected with high sensitivity, 97.1%; specificity, 95.2%; likelihood ratio (LR) for a positive test result, 20.4; and ratio of LR(+) to LR(-), -0.3. With spiral CT angiography, sensitivity, specificity, LR(+), and LR(+):LR(-) were 74.3%, 97.6%, 31.2, and 0.3, respectively. CONCLUSION: Elliptic centric contrast-enhanced MR angiography is more accurate than spiral CT angiography to adequately evaluate carotid stenosis. Furthermore, elliptic centric contrast-enhanced MR angiography appears to be adequate to replace conventional DSA in most patients examined.     

Stenosis detection with MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography in dysfunctional hemodialysis access fistulas and grafts

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess three-dimensional contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography for stenosis depiction in malfunctioning hemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) and grafts (AVGs), as compared with digital subtraction angiography (DSA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ethical review board approval and written informed consent were obtained. MR angiography and DSA were performed in 51 dysfunctional hemodialysis fistulas and grafts in 48 consecutive patients. Vascular tree of accesses was divided into between three and eight segments depending on access type (AVF or AVG) and length of venous outflow. Images obtained with MR and DSA were interpreted by two MR radiologists and two interventional radiologists, respectively, who were blinded to information from each other and other studies. DSA was reference standard for stenosis detection. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of contrast-enhanced MR in detection of vascular segments containing hemodynamically significant (> or =50%) stenosis were calculated. Linear-weighted kappa statistic was calculated for contrast-enhanced MR and DSA to determine interobserver agreement regarding stenosis detection. RESULTS: A total of 282 vascular segments were evaluated. Contrast-enhanced MR depicted three false-positive stenoses and all but two of 70 significant stenoses depicted with DSA. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of MR in detection of vessel segments with significant stenoses were 97% (95% CI: 90%, 99%), 99% (95% CI: 96%, 100%), 96% (95% CI: 88%, 99%), and 99% (95% CI: 97%, 100%), respectively. MR demonstrated significant stenosis in four of five nondiagnostic DSA segments, whereas DSA showed no significant stenosis in four nondiagnostic MR segments. Linear-weighted kappa statistic for interobserver agreement regarding stenosis detection was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89, 0.95) for MR and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92, 0.97) for DSA. CONCLUSION: MR angiography depicts stenoses in dysfunctional hemodialysis accesses but has limited clinical value as result of current inability to perform MR-guided access interventions after stenosis detection. MR of dysfunctional access should be considered only if nondiagnostic vascular segment is present at DSA.     

Contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography of the carotid artery: comparison with conventional digital subtraction angiography

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Since 1996, several preliminary studies have shown the usefulness of contrast material-enhanced MR angiography for imaging supraaortic vessels. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography with that of digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in the evaluation of carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: A blinded comparison of first-pass contrast-enhanced MR angiography with conventional DSA was performed in 120 patients (240 arteries). MR angiography was performed with a 1.5-T magnet with gradient overdrive equipment, by using a coronal radiofrequency-spoiled 3D fast low-angle-shot sequence after the intravenous injection of gadodiamide. The guidelines of the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial for measuring stenosis of the internal carotid artery were applied on maximum intensity projection (MIP) images and conventional catheter angiograms. RESULTS: Grading of stenoses on MR angiograms agreed with grading of stenoses on DSA images in 89% of arteries. In the severe stenosis group (70-99%), agreement was 93%. All internal carotid occlusions (n = 28) and seven of nine pseudo-occlusions were accurately detected with contrast-enhanced MR angiography. The correlation between MR angiography and DSA for determination of minimal, moderate, and severe stenoses and occlusion was statistically significant (r = 0.91, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This investigation with a large number of patients confirms that contrast-enhanced MR angiography could become a diagnostic alternative to DSA in the treatment of patients with carotid artery disease.     

Maximum internal carotid arterial stenosis: assessment with rotational angiography versus conventional intraarterial digital subtraction angiography

PURPOSE: To assess how often rotational angiography depicts more severe internal carotid arterial stenosis compared with conventional intraarterial digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in two or three projections and how frequently this factor may affect patient treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rotational angiography (16 or 32 projections) was performed in addition to DSA in 47 stenotic internal carotid arteries (ICAs) in 38 symptomatic patients. ICA stenosis was measured independently at DSA and at rotational angiography with North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria. The degree of stenosis was categorized as 0%-29%, 30%-49%, 50%-69%, or 70%-99%. RESULTS: In three ICAs, rotational angiography was nondiagnostic. In 28 of the remaining 44 ICAs, the degree of stenosis was categorized similarly with DSA and rotational angiography, whereas with rotational angiography, 15 ICAs were classified one category higher and one ICA was classified two categories higher, owing to the increased number of projections available. Seventy percent to 99% stenosis was demonstrated in 18 ICAs with DSA and in 25 ICAs with rotational angiography. Thus, rotational angiography could have facilitated a change in the optimal treatment (from nonsurgical treatment to carotid arterial endarterectomy) in seven ICAs. CONCLUSION: Compared with DSA in two or three projections, rotational angiography frequently depicts more severe ICA stenosis. This indicates a limitation of DSA in depicting the maximum ICA stenosis.     

Aortoiliac and renal arteries: prospective intraindividual comparison of contrast-enhanced three-dimensional MR angiography and multi-detector row CT angiography

PURPOSE: To compare contrast material-enhanced three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance (MR) angiography and multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) angiography in the same patients for assessment of the aortoiliac and renal arteries, with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the standard of reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DSA, 3D MR angiography, and multi-detector row CT angiography were performed in 46 consecutive patients. A total of 769 arterial segments were analyzed for arterial stenosis by using a four-point grading system. Aneurysmal changes were noted. The time required for performing 3D reconstructions and image analysis of both MR and CT data sets was measured. Patient acceptance for each modality was assessed with a visual analogue scale. Statistical analysis of data was performed. RESULTS: Sensitivity of MR angiography for detection of hemodynamically significant arterial stenosis was 92% for reader 1 and 93% for reader 2, and specificity was 100% and 99%, respectively. Sensitivity of CT angiography was 91% for reader 1 and 92% for reader 2, and specificity was 99% and 99%, respectively. Differences between the two modalities were not significant. Interobserver and intermodality agreement was excellent (kappa = 0.88-0.90). The time for performance of 3D reconstruction and image analysis of CT data sets was significantly longer than that for MR data sets (P <.001). Patient acceptance was best for CT angiography (P =.016). CONCLUSION: There is no statistically significant difference between 3D MR angiography and multi-detector row CT angiography in the detection of hemodynamically significant arterial stenosis of the aortoiliac and renal arteries.     

Preoperative evaluation of carotid artery stenosis: comparison of contrast-enhanced MR angiography and duplex sonography with digital subtraction angiography

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Contrast-enhanced MR angiography and extracranial color-coded duplex sonography are noninvasive, preoperative imaging modalities for evaluation of carotid artery stenosis. Innovative techniques and improvements in image quality require frequent reassessment of accuracy, reliability, and diagnostic value compared with those of digital subtraction angiography (DSA). We evaluated contrast-enhanced MR angiography and duplex sonography compared with DSA for detection of high-grade carotid artery stenoses. METHODS: Four readers, blinded to clinical symptoms and the outcome of other studies, independently evaluated stenoses on contrast-enhanced MR angiograms in 71 vessels of 39 symptomatic patients. Duplex sonography was also performed in all vessels. The severity of stenosis was defined according to North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria (0-29%, 30-69%, 70-99%, 100%). Results of both modalities were compared with the corresponding DSA findings. RESULTS: Contrast-enhanced MR angiography had a sensitivity and specificity of 94.9% and 79.1%, respectively, for the identification of carotid artery stenoses of 70% or greater. Sensitivity and specificity of duplex sonography were 92.9% and 81.9%, respectively. Combining data from both tests revealed a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 81.4%, respectively, for concordant results (80% of vessels). CONCLUSION: Concordant results of contrast-enhanced MR angiography and duplex sonography increase the diagnostic sensitivity to 100%. The reliability of MR angiography is comparable to that of DSA. The combination of contrast-enhanced MR angiography and duplex sonography might be preferable over DSA for preoperative evaluation in most patients, thus reducing the risk of perioperative morbidity and improving the overall outcome.     

Aortoiliac and lower extremity arteries assessed with 16-detector row CT angiography: prospective comparison with digital subtraction angiography

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the accuracy of 16-detector row computed tomographic (CT) angiography with conventional digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard in the assessment of aortoiliac and lower extremity arteries in patients with peripheral arterial disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained. A total of 39 consecutive patients (27 men [mean age, 66 years] and 12 women [mean age, 64 years]) with peripheral arterial disease underwent both conventional DSA and 16-detector row CT angiography. For data analysis, the arterial vascular system was divided into 35 segments. A total of 1365 arterial segments were analyzed for arterial stenosis by two independent blinded readers using a four-point grading system (grade 1, <10% luminal narrowing; grade 2, 10%-49% luminal narrowing; grade 3, 50%-99% luminal narrowing; grade 4, occlusion). Interobserver agreements were calculated by using kappa statistics. A third independent blinded reader assessed possible reasons for disagreements between 16-detector row CT angiographic findings and conventional DSA findings. Effective radiation dose was calculated for both imaging modalities. RESULTS: Sixteen-detector row CT angiographic and conventional DSA findings were diagnostic in all vascular segments. Compared with conventional DSA, the sensitivity and specificity of 16-detector row CT angiography with regard to detection of hemodynamically significant stenosis in all 35 arterial segments were 96% and 97%, respectively, for both readers. Readers 1 and 2 overestimated arterial stenosis in 42 (3%) and 34 (2%) arterial segments, respectively, and underestimated arterial stenosis in 13 (1%) and 10 (1%) arterial segments, respectively. Interobserver agreement was excellent (kappa = 0.84-1.00). Presence of anteroposteriorly located luminal narrowing and extensive vascular wall calcification were considered main reasons for disagreements between imaging modalities. Effective radiation dose was lower for 16-detector row CT angiography (1.6-3.9 mSv) than for conventional DSA (6.4-16.0 mSv). CONCLUSION: Sixteen-detector row CT angiography is an accurate and reliable noninvasive alternative to conventional DSA in the assessment of aortoiliac and lower extremity arteries in patients with peripheral arterial disease.     

Multidirectional depiction of internal carotid arterial stenosis: three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography versus rotational and conventional digital subtraction angiography

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether and to what extent greater number of projection images obtained at three-dimensional (3D) time-of-flight (TOF) magnetic resonance (MR) angiography versus conventional digital subtraction angiography (DSA) causes overestimation of internal carotid arterial (ICA) stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DSA (two or three projections), rotational angiography (16 or 32 projections), and 3D TOF MR angiography (12 projections) were performed in 47 stenotic ICAs of 38 symptomatic patients. Two observers independently measured maximum stenosis, and the mean differences among MR angiography, DSA, and rotational angiography were compared. RESULTS: Three rotational and five MR angiograms were nondiagnostic. Seven MR angiograms of ICA stenoses showed a signal void and were excluded from analysis. On the remaining 32 angiograms, mean differences in maximum stenosis for observers 1 and 2, respectively, were 7% (95% CI: 3%, 12%) and 8% (95% CI: 3%, 13%) at MR angiography versus DSA and 2% (95% CI: -2%, 7%) and -1% (95% CI: -5%, 3%) at MR angiography versus rotational angiography. ICA stenosis was graded significantly higher at MR angiography versus DSA, whereas, it was not overestimated at MR angiography versus rotational angiography. The difference in maximum stenosis at MR angiography versus DSA was significantly different from that of MR angiography versus rotational angiography. CONCLUSION: Apparent overestimation of ICA stenosis at 3D TOF MR angiography versus conventional DSA may be partly explained by the greater number of projection images available at 3D TOF MR angiography.     

Carotid artery stenosis: accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR angiography for diagnosis

PURPOSE: To assess accuracy of contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography as compared with three-dimensional (3D) time-of-flight (TOF) MR angiography and reference digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in diagnosis of carotid artery stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enhanced and 3D TOF MR angiography and DSA were performed in 51 consecutive patients suspected of having carotid artery stenosis at duplex ultrasonography. Stenoses were measured by two independent observers blinded to clinical information and other test results. Pearson correlation coefficients were used, and kappa for interobserver variabilities was estimated. Sensitivity and specificity of enhanced and 3D TOF MR angiography were calculated and compared with those of DSA. RESULTS: Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.94 (P <.01) for enhanced angiography versus DSA, 0.92 (P <.01) for 3D TOF angiography versus DSA, and 0.93 (P <.01) for enhanced versus 3D TOF angiography for observer 1 and 0.94 (P <.01), 0.95 (P <.01), and 0.94 (P <.01), respectively, for observer 2. kappa statistics were 0.81 for enhanced angiography, 0.79 for 3D TOF angiography, and 0.78 for DSA. Stenosis measurements of observer 1 at enhanced MR angiography, with inclusion of carotid arteries on the symptomatic side only, compared with those of DSA yielded a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI: 68%, 99%) and a specificity of 77% (95% CI: 55%, 92%). 3D TOF angiography yielded a sensitivity of 86% (95% CI: 67%, 97%) and a specificity of 73% (95% CI: 50%, 89%) compared with those of DSA. For observer 2, sensitivity and specificity for enhanced angiography were 91% (95% CI: 70%, 99%) and 76% (95% CI: 52%, 91%), respectively, and 90% (95% CI: 68%, 99%) and 77% (95% CI: 51%, 92%), respectively, for 3D TOF angiography. CONCLUSION: Accuracy of enhanced MR angiography in diagnosis of severe stenosis is similar to that of 3D TOF MR angiography.     

Time-resolved MR angiography with generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition and time-resolved echo-sharing angiographic technique for hemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts

PURPOSE: To evaluate the imaging of hemodialysis arteriovenous (AV) fistulas and grafts with use of magnetic resonance (MR) angiography with generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition (GRAPPA) and time-resolved echo-sharing angiographic technique (TREAT) and compare the findings with those of digital subtraction angiography (DSA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The vascular tree directly related to AV fistulas and grafts was divided into nine segments. Images of each segment obtained on GRAPPA MR angiography were evaluated for the presence of stenosis, occlusion, and any other disease (eg, pseudoaneurysm) by two independent observers and compared with a consensus reading of the same segments on DSA imaging. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated with use of DSA as the gold standard modality, and each image on MR angiography and DSA was rated for quality. Linear-weighted kappa scores were calculated as a measure of interobserver variability in the detection of pathologic processes. RESULTS: A total of 80 segments were evaluated by each observer. For both observers, sensitivity rates for the detection of stenosis, occlusion, and any disease were 100% (95% CI, 52%-100%), 100% (95% CI, 20%-100%), and 100% (95% CI, 60%-100%), respectively. For observer 1, specificity rates for the detection of stenosis, occlusion, and any disease were 96% (95% CI, 88%-99%), 100% (95% CI, 94%-100%), and 96% (95% CI, 88%-99%), respectively. For observer 2, the specificity rates for the detection of stenosis, occlusion, and any disease were 93% (95% CI, 84%-98%), 100% (95% CI, 94%-100%), and 93% (95% CI, 84%-97%), respectively. Linear-weighted kappa values for MR angiography and DSA were 0.78+/-0.084 and 0.62+/-0.152, respectively. CONCLUSION: Time-resolved MR angiography with GRAPPA and TREAT offers excellent image quality and provides an accurate and reliable modality for the detection of pathologic processes in hemodialysis AV fistulas and grafts.     

Supraaortic arteries: contrast-enhanced MR angiography at 3.0 T--highly accelerated parallel acquisition for improved spatial resolution over an extended field of view

PURPOSE: To prospectively use 3.0-T breath-hold high-spatial-resolution contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography with highly accelerated parallel acquisition to image the supraaortic arteries of patients suspected of having arterial occlusive disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. Eighty patients (44 men, 36 women; age range, 44-90 years) underwent contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the head and neck at 3.0 T with an eight-channel neurovascular array coil. By applying a generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition algorithm with an acceleration factor of four, high-spatial-resolution (0.7 x 0.7 x 0.9 mm = 0.44-mm(3) voxels) three-dimensional contrast-enhanced MR angiography was performed during a 20-second breath hold. Two neuroradiologists evaluated vascular image quality and arterial stenoses. Interobserver variability was tested with the kappa coefficient. Quantitation of stenosis at MR angiography was compared with that at digital subtraction angiography (DSA) (n = 13) and computed tomographic (CT) angiography (n = 12) with Spearman rank correlation coefficient (R(s)). RESULTS: Arterial stenoses were detected with contrast-enhanced MR angiography in 208 (reader 1) and 218 (reader 2) segments, with excellent interobserver agreement (kappa = 0.80). There was a significant correlation between contrast-enhanced MR angiography and CT angiography (R(s) = 0.95, reader 1; R(s) = 0.87, reader 2) and between contrast-enhanced MR angiography and DSA (R(s) = 0.94, reader 1; R(s) = 0.92, reader 2) for the degree of stenosis. Sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced MR angiography for detection of arterial stenoses greater than 50% were 94% and 98% for reader 1 and 100% and 98% for reader 2, with DSA as the standard of reference. Vascular image quality was sufficient for diagnosis or excellent for 97% of arterial segments evaluated. CONCLUSION: By using highly accelerated parallel acquisition, the described 3.0-T contrast-enhanced MR angiographic protocol enabled visualization and characterization of the majority of supraaortic arteries, with diagnostic or excellent image quality (97% of arterial segments) and diagnostic values comparable with those obtained by using CT angiography and DSA for detection of arterial stenoses.     

Peripheral arterial disease: comparison of color duplex US and contrast-enhanced MR angiography for diagnosis

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracies of color duplex ultrasonography (US) and contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography and to assess interobserver agreement regarding contrast-enhanced MR angiographic findings in patients suspected of having peripheral arterial disease (PAD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved the study, and all patients provided signed informed consent. Two hundred ninety-five patients referred for diagnostic and preinterventional work-up of PAD with duplex US also underwent gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography. Data sets were reviewed for presence or absence of 50% or greater luminal reduction, which indicated hemodynamically significant stenosis, and to determine interobserver agreement. At duplex US, a peak systolic velocity ratio of 2.5 or greater indicated significant stenosis. Primary outcome measures were differences between duplex US and contrast-enhanced MR angiography in sensitivity and specificity for detection of significant stenosis, as assessed with the McNemar test, and interobserver agreement between the two contrast-enhanced MR angiogram readings, expressed as quadratic weighted kappa values. Intraarterial digital subtraction angiography (DSA) was the reference standard. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-nine patients had at least one hemodynamically significant stenotic lesion at contrast-enhanced MR angiography, duplex US, or both examinations. One hundred fifty-two patients underwent intraarterial DSA. The quadratic weighted kappa for agreement regarding the presence of 50% or greater stenosis at contrast-enhanced MR angiography was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87, 0.91). Sensitivity of duplex US was 76% (95% CI: 69%, 82%); specificity, 93% (95% CI: 91%, 95%); and accuracy, 89%. Sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced MR angiography were 84% (95% CI: 78%, 89%) and 97% (95% CI: 95%, 98%), respectively; accuracy was 94%. Sensitivity (P = .002) and specificity (P = .03) of contrast-enhanced MR angiography were significantly higher. CONCLUSION: Results of this prospective comparison between contrast-enhanced MR angiography and duplex US provide evidence that contrast-enhanced MR angiography is more sensitive and specific for diagnosis and preinterventional work-up of PAD.     

Intracranial aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils: usefulness of 6-month imaging follow-up with contrast-enhanced MR angiography

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to assess the utility of contrast-enhanced MR angiography at 6 months after endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with Guglielmi detachable coils. METHODS: Contrast-enhanced MR angiography was performed in 47 patients at 6 and 12 months after endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms (48 aneurysms). Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) was used as reference and was performed at 12 months after the treatment in all patients. MR angiographs were analyzed independently by two senior radiologists. DSA and MR angiography findings were assigned into one of three categories: complete obliteration, residual neck, or residual aneurysm. RESULTS: All examinations were assessable. Interobserver agreement was judged as very good for contrast-enhanced MR angiography (kappa=0.96), with one discrepancy between examiners. Comparison between MR angiography at 6 months and DSA at 12 months showed an excellent agreement between techniques (kappa=0.93). Two cases of complete occlusion at DSA were misclassified as a residual neck at 6-month MR angiography. All aneurysm recanalizations at DSA already were detected on MR angiography at 6 months. The size of aneurysm recanalization did not increase between both MR angiographs performed at 6 and 12 months. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced MR angiography after selective embolization of intracranial aneurysm seems to predict properly early aneurysm recanalizations.     

Interobserver agreement for the interpretation of contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography and MDCT angiography in peripheral arterial disease

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare interobserver agreement for interpretations of contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography and MDCT angiography in patients with peripheral arterial disease. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Of 226 eligible patients, 69 were excluded. The remaining 157 consecutive patients were prospectively randomized to either MR angiography (n = 78) or MDCT angiography (n = 79). Two observers independently evaluated for arterial stenosis or occlusion on MR angiography (2,157 segments) and MDCT angiography (2,419 segments) using a 5-point ordinal scale. Vessel wall calcifications were noted. Interobserver agreement for each technique was evaluated with a weighted kappa (kappa(w)) statistic. RESULTS: Although interobserver agreement for both was excellent, the interobserver agreement for MR angiography (kappa(w) = 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-0.92) was higher than that for MDCT angiography (kappa(w) = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.86) for reporting the degree of arterial stenosis or occlusion in all segments. For the different anatomic locations, the interobserver agreement for MR angiography versus MDCT angiography was as follows: aortoiliac (kappa(w) =0.91 vs 0.84, respectively), femoropopliteal (kappa(w) = 0.91 vs 0.87), and crural (kappa(w) = 0.90 vs 0.83) segments. The interobserver agreement of MDCT angiography significantly decreased in the presence of calcifications but was still good for all anatomic locations. The lowest agreement was found for crural segments in the presence of calcifications (kappa(w) = 0.67). With MR angiography, there were 12 times more nondiagnostic segments than with MDCT angiography (81 vs 7, respectively). CONCLUSION: Interpretations of MR angiography and MDCT angiography for peripheral arterial disease have an excellent interobserver agreement. MR angiography has a higher interobserver agreement than MDCT angiography, and the presence of calcified segments significantly decreases interobserver agreement for MDCT angiography.     

Time-resolved three-dimensional contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the peripheral vessels

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of time-resolved three-dimensional contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography with that of conventional angiography for imaging the lower extremity vasculature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine patients who were evaluated for possible surgical intervention underwent conventional angiography (ie, digital subtraction angiography [DSA]) and contrast-enhanced MR angiography (ie, time-resolved imaging of contrast kinetics [TRICKS]). Two independent, blinded readers evaluated vessel stenosis and occlusion at DSA and MR angiographic image readings. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance. The Cohen kappa test was performed to examine interreader variability. RESULTS: At pooled readings, contrast-enhanced MR angiography had a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 98% for detection of occlusion. For detection of significant stenosis (at least one > or = 50% stenosis), sensitivity and specificity were 77% and 91%, respectively. Interreader agreement was high for detection of both occlusion (kappa = 0.76) and significant stenosis (kappa = 0.68). Sensitivity increased as MR angiographic technical parameters were optimized. When improvements resulting from coil type and injection protocol were considered, the sensitivity and specificity of TRICKS MR angiography were 89% and 97%, respectively, for occlusion detection and 87% and 90%, respectively, for significant stenosis detection. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced TRICKS MR angiography is a feasible and minimally invasive means of acquiring angiograms of the peripheral vasculature with high sensitivity and specificity.     

High-spatial-resolution MR angiography of renal arteries with integrated parallel acquisitions: comparison with digital subtraction angiography and US

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography, performed with an integrated parallel acquisition technique for high isotropic spatial resolution, with selective digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and intravascular ultrasonography (US) for accuracy of diameter and area measurements in renal artery stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board, and consent was obtained from all patients. Forty-five patients (17 women, 28 men; mean age, 62.2 years) were evaluated for suspected renal artery stenosis. Three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR angiograms were acquired with isotropic spatial resolution of 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.9 mm in 23-second breath-hold with an integrated parallel acquisition technique. In-plane diameter of stenosis was measured along vessel axis, and perpendicular diameter and area of stenosis were assessed in cross sections orthogonal to vessel axis, on multiplanar reformations. Interobserver agreement between two radiologists in measurements of in-plane and perpendicular diameters of stenosis and perpendicular area of stenosis was assessed with mean percentage of difference. In a subset of patients, degree of stenosis at MR angiography was compared with that at DSA (n = 20) and intravascular US (n = 11) by using Bland-Altman plots and correlation analyses. RESULTS: Mean percentage of difference in stenosis measurement was reduced from 39.3% +/- 78.4 (standard deviation) with use of in-plane views to 12.6% +/- 9.5 with use of cross-sectional views (P < .05). Interobserver agreement for stenosis grading based on perpendicular area of stenosis was significantly better than that for stenosis grading based on in-plane diameter of stenosis (mean percentage of difference, 15.2% +/- 24.2 vs 54.9% +/- 186.9; P < .001). Measurements of perpendicular area of stenosis on MR angiograms correlated well with those on intravascular US images (r(2) = 0.90). CONCLUSION: Evaluation of cross-sectional images reconstructed from high-spatial-resolution three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR renal angiographic data increases the accuracy of the technique and decreases interobserver variability.     

Assessment of aortoiliac and renal arteries: MR angiography with parallel acquisition versus conventional MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the image quality, sensitivity, and specificity of three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography accelerated by parallel acquisition (ie, fast MR angiography) with MR angiography not accelerated by parallel acquisition (ie, conventional MR angiography) for assessment of aortoiliac and renal arteries, with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board; informed consent was obtained from all patients. Forty consecutive patients (33 men, seven women; mean age, 63 years) suspected of having aortoiliac and renal arterial stenoses and thus examined with DSA underwent both fast (mean imaging time, 17 seconds) and conventional (mean imaging time, 29 seconds) MR angiography. The arterial tree was divided into segments for image analysis. Two readers independently evaluated all MR angiograms for image quality, presence of arterial stenosis, and renal arterial variants. Image quality, sensitivity, and specificity were analyzed on per-patient and per-segment bases for multiple comparisons (with Bonferroni correction) and for dependencies between segments (with patient as the primary sample unit). Interobserver agreement was evaluated by using kappa statistics. RESULTS: Overall, the image quality with fast MR angiography was significantly better (P=.001) than that with conventional MR angiography. At per-segment analysis, the image quality of fast MR angiograms of the distal renal artery tended to be better than that of conventional MR angiograms of these vessels. Differences in sensitivity for the detection of arterial stenosis between the two MR angiography techniques were not significant for either reader. Interobserver agreement in the detection of variant renal artery anatomy was excellent with both conventional and fast MR angiography (kappa=1.00). CONCLUSION: Fast MR angiography and conventional MR angiography do not differ significantly in terms of arterial stenosis grading or renal arterial variant detection.     

Hemodialysis access imaging: comparison of flow-interrupted contrast-enhanced MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography

PURPOSE: To compare flow-interrupted contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography with conventional digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for hemodialysis access imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two accesses (14 arteriovenous grafts [AVGs], eight arteriovenous fistulas [AVFs]) in 18 consecutive patients were imaged with flow-interrupted contrast-enhanced MR angiography and subsequent conventional DSA. MR image quality was assessed as excellent, good, or nondiagnostic. Anastomotic diameters in AVGs and postanastomotic diameters in AVFs were measured in consideration of an adjacent normal segment. Reductions in the diameter of the lumen and interobserver differences were analyzed with method comparison as described by Bland and Altman and expressed as the mean difference with its 95% confidence limits (CLs) (mean +/- 2 SDs). RESULTS: Image quality obtained with flow-interrupted contrast-enhanced MR angiography was considered excellent in 73% (16 of 22) and good in 23% (5 of 22). Method comparison analysis between MR angiography and DSA indicated a mean difference of 3.2% (95% CLs: -26.7%, 33.1%) for observer 1 and 4.1% (95% CLs: -23.8%, 32.1%) for observer 2. Interobserver analysis at MR angiography indicated a mean difference of 3.2% (95% CLs: -28.8%, 35.2%), and that at DSA indicated a mean difference of 3.6% (95% CLs: -9.4%, 16.7%). CONCLUSION: Image quality and anatomic depiction with flow-interrupted contrast-enhanced MR angiography and with DSA were comparable. Copyright RSNA, 2002     

Comparison of intraarterial and IV gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography with digital subtraction angiography for the detection of renal artery stenosis in pigs.

OBJECTIVE: Catheter-based intraarterial injections of gadolinium are useful during MR imaging-guided endovascular procedures to generate rapid vascular road maps. Using an animal model of renal artery stenosis, we tested the hypothesis that intraarterial gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography is as accurate as IV gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography (DSA). We also tested the hypothesis that intraarterial MR angiography uses less gadolinium than IV MR angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We induced bilateral renal artery stenosis in five pigs. All pigs underwent comparative imaging with DSA, IV MR angiography, and aortic catheter-directed intraarterial MR angiography. For IV and intraarterial MR angiography, we used the same three-dimensional acquisition. We assessed differences in quantitative stenosis measurements among DSA, IV MR angiography, and intraarterial MR angiography using the Wilcoxon's signed rank test. RESULTS: Mean stenosis measurements (+/-SD) were as follows: DSA, 58% +/- 12%; IV MR angiography, 63% +/- 9.3%; and intraarterial MR angiography, 64% +/- 11%. There were no statistically significant differences in accuracy between DSA and IV MR angiography (p = 0.06), DSA and intraarterial MR angiography (p = 0.16), or IV and intraarterial MR angiography (p = 0.70). Intraarterial MR angiography used a mean gadolinium dose of 5.6 mL, compared with 9 mL for IV MR angiography. CONCLUSION: In swine, IV and intraarterial MR angiography have a similar accuracy for detecting renal artery stenosis. Intraarterial MR angiography uses smaller doses of injected gadolinium.