Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improved detection of in-stent restenosis by blood pool agent-enhanced, high-resolution, steady-state magnetic resonance angiography

  • Vascular-Interventional
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess whether visualisation of in-stent changes can be improved with high-resolution, steady-state, blood pool contrast-enhanced MR angiography compared with first-pass MR angiography. Intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (DSA) served as the reference standard.

Methods

Twenty patients after stent placement in the superficial femoral artery (SFA) underwent MRA prior to reintervention. MRA of the SFA includes first-pass MRA as well as 3D high-resolution MRA in the steady state (SS-MRA) after injection of Gadofosveset trisodium. Sensitivity and specificity values for the detection of significant in-stent lesions by means of SS-MRA were calculated at the proximal, middle and distal stent segments in comparison to DSA. Kappa statistics were used to determine agreement between the two techniques.

Results

Sensitivity and specificity values for the detection of significant stenosis with SS-MRA reached 95% in the proximal, 100% in the middle and 100% in the distal stent segment. Kappa coefficients between SS-MRA and DSA were 0.789, 0.797 and 0.859 for the proximal, middle and distal segments, whereas the Kappa coefficients for FP-MRA were 0,211, 0,200 and 0,594 in these segments, respectively.

Conclusion

Detection of in stent stenosis is significantly improved using SS MRA, in comparison to state-of-the-art FP-MRA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gardner AW, Afaq A (2008) Management of lower extremity peripheral arterial disease. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev 28:349–357

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mukherjee D, Cho L (2009) Peripheral arterial disease: considerations in risks, diagnosis, and treatment. J Natl Med Assoc 101:999–1008

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hirsch AT, Criqui MH, Treat-Jacobson D et al (2001) Peripheral arterial disease detection, awareness, and treatment in primary care. JAMA 286:1317–1324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hirsch AT, Murphy TP, Lovell MB et al (2007) Gaps in public knowledge of peripheral arterial disease: the first national PAD public awareness survey. Circulation 116:2086–2094

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Norgren L, Hiatt WR, Dormandy JA, Nehler MR, Harris KA, Fowkes FG (2007) Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC II). J Vasc Surg Suppl 45:5–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Norgren L, Hiatt WR, Dormandy JA et al (2007) Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC II). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Suppl 33:1–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schillinger M, Sabeti S, Loewe C et al (2006) Balloon angioplasty versus implantation of nitinol stents in the superficial femoral artery. N Engl J Med 354:1879–1888

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Loewe C, Cejna M, Schoder M et al (2003) Contrast material-enhanced, moving-table MR angiography versus digital subtraction angiography for surveillance of peripheral arterial bypass grafts. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:1129–1137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Loewe C, Schillinger M, Haumer M et al (2004) MRA versus DSA in the assessment of occlusive disease in the aortic arch vessels: accuracy in detecting the severity, number, and length of stenoses. J Endovasc Ther 11:152–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Blum MB, Schmook M, Schernthaner R et al (2007) Quantification and detectability of in-stent stenosis with CT angiography and MR angiography in arterial stents in vitro. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1238–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lenhart M, Volk M, Manke C et al (2000) Stent appearance at contrast-enhanced MR angiography: in vitro examination with 14 stents. Radiology 217:173–178

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nielsen YW, Eiberg JP, Logager VB, Just S, Schroeder TV, Thomsen HS (2010) Whole-body magnetic resonance angiography with additional steady-state acquisition of the infragenicular arteries in patients with peripheral arterial disease. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 33:484–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hadizadeh DR, Gieseke J, Lohmaier SH et al (2008) Peripheral MR angiography with blood pool contrast agent: prospective intraindividual comparative study of high-spatial-resolution steady-state MR angiography versus standard-resolution first-pass MR angiography and DSA. Radiology 249:701–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lauffer RB, Parmelee DJ, Dunham SU et al (1998) MS-325: albumin-targeted contrast agent for MR angiography. Radiology 207:529–538

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dearing DD, Patel KR, Compoginis JM, Kamel MA, Weaver FA, Katz SG (2009) Primary stenting of the superficial femoral and popliteal artery. J Vasc Surg 50:542–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Norgren L, Hiatt WR, Harris KA, Lammer J (2007) TASC II section F on revascularization in PAD. J Endovasc Ther 14:743–744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dormandy JA, Rutherford RB (2000) Management of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). TASC Working Group. TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC). J Vasc Surg Suppl 31:1–296

    Google Scholar 

  18. Capek P, McLean GK, Berkowitz HD (1991) Femoropopliteal angioplasty. Factors influencing long-term success. Circulation 83:I70–I80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Schernthaner R, Stadler A, Lomoschitz F et al (2008) Multidetector CT angiography in the assessment of peripheral arterial occlusive disease: accuracy in detecting the severity, number, and length of stenoses. Eur Radiol 18:665–671

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fleischmann D, Hallett RL, Rubin GD (2006) CT angiography of peripheral arterial disease. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:3–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bachthaler M, Lenhart M, Paetzel C, Feuerbach S, Link J, Manke C (2004) Corrosion of tungsten coils after peripheral vascular embolization therapy: influence on outcome and tungsten load. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 62:380–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Li XM, Li YH, Tian JM et al (2009) Evaluation of peripheral artery stent with 64-slice multi-detector row CT angiography: Prospective comparison with digital subtraction angiography. Eur J Radiol 75:98–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wolf F, Feuchtner GM, Homolka P et al (2008) In vitro imaging of coronary artery stents: are there differences between 16- and 64-slice CT scanners? Eur J Radiol 68:465–470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ellis JH, Cohan RH (2009) Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: an overview. Radiol Clin North Am 47:801–811

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ellis JH, Cohan RH (2009) Reducing the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy: a perspective on the controversies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1544–1549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Koelemay MJ, den Hartog D, Prins MH, Kromhout JG, Legemate DA, Jacobs MJ (1996) Diagnosis of arterial disease of the lower extremities with duplex ultrasonography. Br J Surg 83:404–409

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Koelemay MJ, Legemate DA, de Vos H et al (2001) Duplex scanning allows selective use of arteriography in the management of patients with severe lower leg arterial disease. J Vasc Surg 34:661–667

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Schillinger M, Sabeti S, Dick P et al (2007) Sustained benefit at 2 years of primary femoropopliteal stenting compared with balloon angioplasty with optional stenting. Circulation 115:2745–2749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Maintz D, Kugel H, Schellhammer F, Landwehr P (2001) In vitro evaluation of intravascular stent artifacts in three-dimensional MR angiography. Invest Radiol 36:218–224

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Maki JH, Wang M, Wilson GJ, Shutske MG, Leiner T (2009) Highly accelerated first-pass contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the peripheral vasculature: comparison of gadofosveset trisodium with gadopentetate dimeglumine contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:1085–1092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bosch E, Kreitner KF, Peirano MF, Thurnher S, Shamsi K, Parsons EC Jr (2008) Safety and efficacy of gadofosveset-enhanced MR angiography for evaluation of pedal arterial disease: multicenter comparative phase 3 study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:179–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bonel HM, Saar B, Hoppe H et al (2009) MR angiography of infrapopliteal arteries in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease by using Gadofosveset at 3.0 T: diagnostic accuracy compared with selective DSA. Radiology 253:879–890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Perreault P, Edelman MA, Baum RA et al (2003) MR angiography with gadofosveset trisodium for peripheral vascular disease: phase II trial. Radiology 229:811–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Nielsen YW, Eiberg JP, Logager VB, Hansen MA, Schroeder TV, Thomsen HS (2009) Whole-body MR angiography with body coil acquisition at 3 T in patients with peripheral arterial disease using the contrast agent gadofosveset trisodium. Acad Radiol 16:654–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Division of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Christina M. Plank, Florian Wolf, Herbert Langenberger, Michael Weber, Dietrich Beitzke, Alfred Stadler, Johannes Lammer & Christian Loewe

  2. Department of Angiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Martin Schillinger

Authors
  1. Christina M. Plank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florian Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Herbert Langenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dietrich Beitzke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alfred Stadler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Martin Schillinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Johannes Lammer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Christian Loewe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Loewe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Plank, C.M., Wolf, F., Langenberger, H. et al. Improved detection of in-stent restenosis by blood pool agent-enhanced, high-resolution, steady-state magnetic resonance angiography. Eur Radiol 21, 2158–2165 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2145-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2145-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation