Non-contrast-enhanced MR angiography in critical limb ischemia: performance of quiescent-interval single-shot (QISS) and TSE-based subtraction techniques
- 377 Downloads
The aim of this study was to evaluate diagnostic performance of non-contrast-enhanced 2D quiescent-interval single-shot (QISS) and 3D turbo spin-echo (TSE)-based subtraction magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in the assessment of peripheral arteries in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI).
Materials and methods
Nineteen consecutive patients (74 % male, 72.8 ± 9.9 years) with CLI underwent 2D QISS and 3D TSE-based subtraction MRA at 1.5 T. Axial-overlapping QISS MRA (3 mm/2 mm; 1 × 1 mm2) covered from the toes to the aortic bifurcation while coronal 3D TSE-based subtraction MRA (1.3 × 1.2 × 1.3 mm3) was restricted to the calf only. MRA data sets (two readers) were evaluated for stenosis (≥50 %) and image quality. Results were compared with digital subtraction angiography (DSA).
Two hundred and sixty-seven (267) segments were available for MRA-DSA comparison, with a prevalence of stenosis ≥50 % of 41.9 %. QISS MRA was rated as good to excellent in 79.5–96.0 % of segments without any nondiagnostic segments; 89.8–96.1 % of segments in 3D TSE-based subtraction MRA were rated as nondiagnostic or poor. QISS MRA sensitivities and specificities (segmental) were 92 % and 95 %, respectively, for reader one and 81–97 % for reader two. Due to poor image quality of 3D TSE-based subtraction MRA, diagnostic performance measures were not calculated.
QISS MRA demonstrates excellent diagnostic performance and higher robustness than 3D TSE-based subtraction MRA in the challenging patient population with CLI.
• QISS MRA allows reliable diagnosis of peripheral artery stenosis in critical limb ischemia.
• Robustness of TSE-based subtraction MRA is limited in critical limb ischemia.
• QISS MRA allows robust therapy planning in PAD patients with resting leg pain.
KeywordsPeripheral arterial disease Magnetic resonance angiography Ischemia Angiography, Digital subtraction Magnetic resonance imaging
Peripheral artery disease
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Bernd Wintersperger, Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Toronto ON, Canada (email@example.com). The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies:
Manuela Rick is an employee of Siemens Healthcare GmbH
Peter Schmitt is an employee of Siemens Healthcare GmbH
Bernd J. Wintersperger receives research support from Siemens Healthcare GmbH
Bernd J. Wintersperger receives honorarium from Siemens Healthcare GmbH as a speaker’s bureau member.
The authors state that this work has not received any funding. Ravi J. Menezes, epidemiologist and coauthor of this manuscript, kindly provided statistical advice. Institutional (UHN) Research Ethics Board (REB) approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Study patients or cohorts were not previously reported. This was a prospective, diagnostic, or prognostic study performed at one institution.
- 5.Nehler MR, Duval S, Diao L et al (2014) Epidemiology of peripheral arterial disease and critical limb ischemia in an insured national population. J Vasc Surg 60(686–695), e682Google Scholar
- 23.Jens S, Koelemay MJ, Reekers JA, Bipat S (2013) Diagnostic performance of computed tomography angiography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in patients with critical limb ischaemia and intermittent claudication: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 23:3104–3114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Rasper M, Wildgruber M, Settles M et al (2015) 3D non-contrast-enhanced ECG-gated MR angiography of the lower extremities with dual-source radiofrequency transmission at 3.0 T: Intraindividual comparison with contrast-enhanced MR angiography in PAOD patients. Eur Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4089-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Knobloch G, Lauff MT, Hirsch S, Schwenke C, Hamm B, Wagner M (2016) Nonenhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) of the calf arteries at 3 Tesla: intraindividual comparison of 3D flow-dependent subtractive MRA and 2D flow-independent non-subtractive MRA. Eur Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4246-1 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar