European Radiology

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 685–691

Total-body 3D magnetic resonance angiography influences the management of patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease

  • Mathias Goyen
  • Christoph U. Herborn
  • Knut Kröger
  • Stefan G. Ruehm
  • Jörg F. Debatin
Vascular-Interventional

Abstract

High-resolution total-body 3D MR angiography (MRA) has recently become available, revealing additional clinically relevant disease in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD). However, the actual impact of total-body MRA on patient management in patients with PAOD has not been investigated so far. Two hundred forty-nine consecutive patients with angiographically proven PAOD were prospectively examined by means of contrast-enhanced total-body 3D MRA on a 1.5-T MR scanner. All correlative imaging studies performed within 60 days of total-body MRA were included in the efficacy analysis. Additional clinically relevant disease (luminal narrowing >50%, aneurysmal changes or dissections) was found in 73 segments (52 patients), including the renal arteries (36 segments), carotid arteries (28 segments), subclavian arteries (four segments) and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) (five segments). Of the 73 segments, 36 were deemed necessary for further investigation by means of focused MRA examinations; the diagnosis was confirmed in all cases. Within the 60-day follow-up period, interventional or surgical therapy outside the peripheral arterial tree was performed in nine patients (11 segments), including carotid endatherectomy and renal artery angioplasty. The outlined total-body 3D MRA approach permits a comprehensive evaluation of the arterial system in patients with atherosclerosis and does indeed have an impact on patient management in patients with PAOD.

Keywords

Atherosclerosis MR angiography Peripheral arterial occlusive disease Patient management 

References

  1. 1.
    Rutkow IM, Ernst CB (1986) An analysis of vascular surgical manpower requirements and vascular surgical rates in the United States. J Vasc Surg 3:74–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Management of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) (2000) J Vasc Surg 31, part 2(Suppl):S5Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shellock FG, Kanal E (1999) Safety of magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:477–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prince MR (1994) Gadolinium-enhanced MR aortography. Radiology 191:155–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prince MR, Narasimham DL, Stanley JC, Chenevert TL, Williams DM, Marx MV, Cho KJ (1995) Breath-hold gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography of the abdominal aorta and its major branches. Radiology 197:785–792PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meaney JF, Weg JG, Chenevert TL, Stafford-Johnson D, Hamilton BH, Prince MR (1997) Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism with magnetic resonance angiography. N Engl J Med 336:1422–1427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goyen M, Debatin JF, Ruehm SG (2001) Peripheral MR angiography. Top Magn Res Imaging 12:327–335CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herborn CU (2004) Peripheral contrast-enhanced 3D MRA with 1.0 M gadobutrol. Eur Radiol 14(Suppl 5):M23–M25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herborn CU (2004) On the difference between 0.5-M and 1.0-M gadolinium chelates for 3D MR angiography. Eur Radiol 14(Suppl 5):M21–M22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meaney JF, Ridgway JP, Chakraverty S et al (1999) Stepping-table gadolinium-enhanced digital subtraction MR angiography of the aorta and lower extremity arteries: preliminary experience. Radiology 211:59–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ho KY, Leiner T, de Haan MW et al (1998) Peripheral vascular tree stenoses: evaluation with moving-bed infusion-tracking MR angiography. Radiology 206:683–692PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ruehm SG, Goyen M, Barkhausen J et al (2001) Rapid magnetic resonance angiography for detection of atherosclerosis. Lancet 357:1086–1091PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goyen M, Quick HH, Debatin JF et al (2002) Whole-body three-dimensional MR angiography with a rolling table platform: initial clinical experience. Radiology 224:270–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herborn CU, Goyen M, Quick HH et al (2004) Whole-body 3D MR angiography of patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Am J Roentgenol 182:1427–1434Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goyen M, Herborn CU, Kroger K, Lauenstein TC, Debatin JF, Ruehm SG (2003) Detection of atherosclerosis: systemic imaging for systemic disease with whole-body three-dimensional MR angiography-initial experience. Radiology 227:277–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ruehm SG, Goyen M, Quick HH et al (2000) Whole-body MRA on a rolling table platform (AngioSURF). RöFo 172:670–674PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goyen M, Herborn CU, Lauenstein TC, Debatin JF, Bosk S, Ruehm SG (2002) Optimization of contrast dosage for gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced high-resolution whole body 3D MR angiography. Invest Radiol 37:263–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goyen M, Ruehm SG, Debatin JF (2000) MR angiography: the role of contrast agents. Eur J Radiol 34:247–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prince MR (1998) Contrast-enhanced MR angiography: theory and optimization. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 6:257–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kirchin MA, Pirovano G, Spinazzi A (1998) Gd-BOPTA (Gd-BOPTA): an overview. Invest Radiol 33:798–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Knopp EA (1996) The role of magnetic resonance angiography in the assessment of intracranial vascular disease. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 6:769–780PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Patrux B, Laissy JP, Jouini S, Kawiecki W, Coty P, Thiebot J (1994) Magnetic resonance anigography (MRA) of the circle of Willis: a prospective comparison with conventional angiography in 54 subjects. Neuroradiology 36:193–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stock KW, Radue EW, Jacob AL, Bao XS, Steinbrich W (1995) Intracranial arteries: prospective blinded comparative study of MR angiography and DSA in 50 patients. Radiology 195:451–456PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Manning WJ, Li W, Edelman RR (1993) A preliminary report comparing magnetic resonance coronary angiography with conventional angiography. N Engl J Med 328:828–832PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li D, Deshpande V (2001) Magnetic resonance imaging of coronary arteries. Top Magn Reson Imaging 12:337–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim WY, Danias PG, Stuber M et al (2001) Coronary magnetic resonance angiography for the detection of coronary stenoses. N Engl J Med 345:1863–1869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Herborn CU, Schmidt M, Bruder O, Nagel E, Shamsi K, Barkhausen J (2004) MR coronary angiography with SH L 643 A: initial experience in patients with coronary artery disease. Radiology 233:567–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prince MR, Chenevert TL, Foo TK, Londy FJ, Ward JS, Maki JH (1997) Contrast-enhanced abdominal MR angiography: optimization of imaging delay time by automating the detection of contrast material arrival in the aorta. Radiology 203:109–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goyen M, Goehde SC, Herborn CU et al (2004) MR-based full-body preventative cardiovascular and tumor imaging: technique and preliminary experience. Eur Radiol 14(5):783–791CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, Boesiger P (1999) SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med 42:952–962CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fink C, Ley S, Kroeker R, Requardt M, Kauczor HU, Bock M (2005) Time-resolved contrast-enhanced three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography of the chest: combination of parallel imaging with view sharing (TREAT). Invest Radiol 40:40–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    de Vries M, Nijenhuis RJ, Hoogeveen RM, de Haan MW, van Engelshoven JM, Leiner T (2005) Contrast-enhanced peripheral MR angiography using SENSE in multiple stations: feasibility study. J Magn Reson Imaging 21:37–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Von Kemp K, van den Brande P, Peterson T et al (1997) Screening for concomitant diseases in peripheral vascular patients. Results of a systematic approach. Int Angiol 16:114–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hertzer NR, Beven EG, Young JR et al (1984) Coronary artery disease in peripheral vascular patients. A classification of 1,000 coronary angiograms and results of surgical management. Ann Surg 199:223–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Alexandrova NA, Gibson WC, Norris JW, Maggisano R (1996) Carotid artery stenosis in peripheral vascular disease. J Vasc Surg 23:645–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Marek J, Mills JL, Harvich J, Cui H, Fujitani RM (1996) Utility of routine carotid duplex screening in patients who have claudication. J Vasc Surg 24:572–577, discussion 577–579CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Klop RB, Eikelboom BC, Taks AC et al (1991) Screening of the internal carotid arteries in patients with peripheral vascular disease by colour-flow duplex scanning. Eur J Vasc Surg 5:41–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    McDaniel MD, Cronenwett JL (1989) Basic data related to the natural history of intermittent claudication. Ann Vasc Surg 3:273–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tode JF (1995) Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. JAMA 274:1505–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Barnett HJM, Eliasziw ME, Meldrum HE, Taylor DW (1996) Do the facts and figures warrant a 10-fold increase in the performance of carotid endarterectomy on asymptomatic patients? Neurology 46:603–608PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Silvestrini M, Vernieri F, Pasqualetti P et al (2000) Impaired cerebral vasoreactivity and risk of stroke in patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. JAMA 283:2122–2127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Warlow C (1996) Surgical treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Cerebrovasc Dis 6(Suppl):7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Melton LJ, Bickerstaff LK, Hollier LH et al (1984) Changing incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysms: a population-based study. Am J Epidemiol 120:379–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lederle FA, Walker JM, Reinke DB (1988) Selective screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms with physical examination and ultrasound. Arch Intern Med 148:1753–1756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cooley DA, Carmichael MJ (1984) Abdominal aortic aneurysm. Circulation 70:5–6Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Salerno TA, Hermandez P, Lynn RB (1981) Abdominal aortic aneurysm in the elderly. Can J Surg 24:71–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Weinstein MC, Stason WB (1977) Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for the health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 296:716–721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Steinberg CR, Morton A, Steinberg I (1965) Measurement of the abdominal aorta after intravenous aortography in health and arteriosclerotic peripheral vascular disease. Am J Roentgenol 95:703–708Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lederle FA, Johnson GR, Wilson SE et al (1997) Prevalence and associations of abdominal aortic aneurysm detected through screening. Ann Intern Med 126:441–449PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Frame PS, Fryback DG, Patterson C (1993) Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in men ages 60 to 80 years. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 119:411–416PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Johansen K, Koepsell T (1986) Familial tendency for abdominal aortic aneurysms. JAMA 256:1934–1936CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Scott RA, Wilson NM, Ashton HA, Kay DN (1995) Influence of screening on the incidence of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: 5-year results of a randomized controlled study. Br J Surg 82:1066–1070PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathias Goyen
    • 1
  • Christoph U. Herborn
    • 1
  • Knut Kröger
    • 2
  • Stefan G. Ruehm
    • 3
  • Jörg F. Debatin
    • 1
  1. 1.University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of AngiologyUniversity Hospital EssenEssenGermany
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations