European Radiology

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 1223–1231 | Cite as

Prospective, intraindividual comparison of MRI versus MDCT for endoleak detection after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

  • Mario Alerci
  • Michel Oberson
  • Antonella Fogliata
  • Augusto Gallino
  • Peter Vock
  • Rolf WyttenbachEmail author
Magnetic Resonance


This study compares MRI and MDCT for endoleak detection after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR). Forty-three patients with previous EVAR underwent both MRI (2D T1-FFE unenhanced and contrast-enhanced; 3D triphasic contrast-enhanced) and 16-slice MDCT (unenhanced and biphasic contrast-enhanced) within 1 week of each other for endoleak detection. MRI was performed by using a high-relaxivity contrast medium (gadobenate dimeglumine, MultiHance®). Two blinded, independent observers evaluated MRI and MDCT separately. Consensus reading of MRI and MDCT studies was defined as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated and Cohen’s k statistics were used to estimate agreement between readers. Twenty endoleaks were detected in 18 patients at consensus reading (12 type II and 8 indeterminate endoleaks). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for endoleak detection were 100%, 92%, and 96%, respectively, for reader 1 (95%, 81%, 87% for reader 2) for MRI and 55%, 100%, and 80% for reader 1 (60%, 100%, 82% for reader 2) for MDCT. Interobserver agreement was excellent for MDCT (k = 0.96) and good for MRI (k = 0.81). MRI with the use of a high-relaxivity contrast agent is significantly superior in the detection of endoleaks after EVAR compared with MDCT. MRI may therefore become the preferred technique for patient follow-up after EVAR.


Aneurysm Aorta Endovascular repair Endoleak Computed tomography Magnetic resonance imaging Gadobenate dimeglumine 



multidetector computed tomography


magnetic resonance imaging




endovascular aortic aneurysm repair


magnetic resonance angiography


multiplanar reconstruction


maximum-intensity projection


confidence interval



Rolf Wyttenbach, MD, is supported by a grant from the Swiss Heart Foundation. We thank Paolo Santini, RT, and the team of MRI technicians for their collaboration and support.


  1. 1.
    Parodi JC, Palmaz JC, Barone HD (1991) Transfemoral intraluminal graft implantation for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Ann Vasc Surg 5:491–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zarins CK, Wolf YG, Lee WA et al (2000) Will endovascular repair replace open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair? Ann Surg 232:501–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stavropoulos SW, Charagundla SR (2007) Imaging techniques for detection and management of endoleaks after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Radiology 243:641–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eliason JL, Upchurch GR Jr (2008) Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Circulation 117:1738–1744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Görich J, Rilinger N, Sokiranski R et al (1999) Leakages after endovascular repair of aortic aneurysm: classification based on findings at CT, angiography and radiography. Radiology 213:767–772PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rozenblit AM, Patlas M, Rosenbaum AT et al (2003) Detection of endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: value of unenhanced and delayed helical CT acquisition. Radiology 227:426–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stavropoulos SW, Clark TWI, Carpenter JP et al (2005) Use of CT angiography to classify endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Interv Radiol 16:663–667PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cherniak V, Rozenblit AM, Patlas M et al (2006) Type II endoleak after endoaortic graft implantation: diagnosis with helical CT angiography. Radiology 240:885–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wicky S, Fan CM, Geller SC et al (2003) MR angiography of endoleak with inconclusive concomitant CT angiography. Am J Roentgenol 181:736–738Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pitton MB, Schweitzer H, Herber S et al (2005) MRI versus helical CT for endoleaks detection after endovascular aneurysm repair. Am J Roentgenol 185:1275–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van der Laan MJ, Bartels LW, Viergever MA et al (2006) Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging of endoleaks after EVAR. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 32:361–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haulon S, Lions C, Mc Fadden EP et al (2001) Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging after endovascular treatment of infrarenal aortic aneurysm. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 22:62–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cavagna FM, Maggioni F, Castelli PM et al (1997) Gadolinium chelates with weak binding to serum proteins; a new class of high-efficiency, general purpose contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 32(12):780–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bonvini RF, Alerci M, Antonucci F et al (2003) Preoperative embolization of collateral side branches: a valid means to reduce type II endoleak after endovascular AAA repair. J Endovasc Ther 10:227–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Willinek WA, Gieseke J, Conrad R et al (2002) Randomly segmented central k-space ordering in high-spatial-resolution contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the supraaortic arteries: initial experience. Radiology 225(2):583–588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pitton MB, Schmenger PR, Neufang A et al (2002) Endovascular aneurysm repair: magnetic resonance monitoring of histoloigical organization process in the excluded aneurysm. Circulation 105:1995–1999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zarins CK, White RA, Fogaty TJ (2000) Aneurysm rupture after endovascular repair using the AneuRx stent graft. J Vasc Surg 31:960–970PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Politz JK, Newman VS, Stewart MT (2000) Late abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture after AneuRX repair: a report of three cases. J Vasc Surg 31:599–606PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    White RA, Donayre C, Walot I et al (2000) Abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture following endoluminal graft deployment: report of a predictable event. J Endovasc Ther 7:257–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hinchliffe RJ, Singh-Ranger R, Davidson IR et al (2001) Rupture of an aortic aneurysm secondary to type II endoleak. Eur J Vasc Endovas Surg 22:563–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cejna M, Loewe C, Schoder M et al (2002) MR angiography vs CT angiography in the follow-up of nitinol stent grafts in endoluminal treated aortic aneurysm. Eur Radiol 12:2443–2450PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sato DT, Goff CD, Gregory RT et al (1998) Endoleak after aortic stent repair: diagnosis by color duplex ultrasound scan versus computed tomography scan. J Vasc Surg 28:657–663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Napoli V, Bargellini I, Sardella SG et al (2004) Abdominal aortic aneurysm: contrast enhanced US for endoleak after endoluminal repair. Radiology 233:217–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pitton MB (2005) Diagnosis and management of endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair: role of MRI. Abdom Imaging 31:339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Engellau L, Larsson EM, Albrachtsson U et al (1998) Magnetic resonance imaging and MR angiography of endoluminal treated abdominal aortic aneurysm. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 15:212–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Insko EK, Kulzer LM, Fairman RM et al (2003) MR imaging for detection of endoleaks in recipients of abdominal aortic stent-grafts with low magnetic susceptibility. Acad Radiol 10:509–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ayuso JR, de Caralt TM, Pages M et al (2004) MRA is useful as follow-up technique after endovascular repair of aortic aneurysm with nitinol endoprosthesis. J Magn Reson Imaging 20:803–810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brenner DJ, Elliston CD (2004) Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 232:735–738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Iezzi R, Cotroneo AR, Filippone A et al (2006) Multidetector CT in abdominal aortic aneurysm treated with endovascular repair: are unenhanced and delayed phase enhanced images effective for endoleak detection. Radiology 241(3):915–921PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Macari M, Chandarana H, Schmidt B et al (2006) Abdominal aortic aneurysm: can the arterial phase at CT evaluation after endovascular repair be eliminated to reduce radiation dose. Radiology 241(3):908–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    De Haen C, Cabrini M, Akhnana L et al (1999) Gd-BOPTA 0.5M solution for injection (MultiHance®): pharmaceutical formulation and physicochemical properties of a new magnetic resonance imaging contrast medium. J Comput Assist Tomogr 23(Suppl 1):S161–S168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wyttenbach R, Gianella S, Alerci M et al (2003) Prospective blinded evaluation of Gd-DOTA- versus Gd-BOPTA-enhanced peripheral MR angiography, as compared with digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 227:261–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kreitner KF, Kunz RP, Herber S et al (2008) MR angiography of the pedal arteries with gadobenate dimeglumine, a contrast agent with increased relaxivity, and comparison with selective intraarterial DSA. J Magn Reson Imaging 27(1):78–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario Alerci
    • 1
  • Michel Oberson
    • 2
  • Antonella Fogliata
    • 3
  • Augusto Gallino
    • 2
  • Peter Vock
    • 4
  • Rolf Wyttenbach
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyOspedale San Giovanni Bellinzona (EOC)BellinzonaSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of CardiologyOspedale San Giovanni Bellinzona (EOC)BellinzonaSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Medical PhysicsOspedale San Giovanni Bellinzona (EOC)BellinzonaSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyInselspital, University of BerneBerneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations