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
- 314 Downloads
To compare prospectively image quality and diagnostic confidence of flow-sensitive 3D turbo spin echo (TSE)-based non-contrast-enhanced MR angiography (NE-MRA) at 3.0 T using dual-source radiofrequency (RF) transmission with contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD).
After consent was obtained, 35 patients (mean age 69.1 ± 10.6 years) with PAOD stage II-IV underwent NE-MRA followed by CE-MRA. Signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated. Subjective image quality was independently assessed by two radiologists and stenosis scoring was performed in 875 arterial segments. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for stenosis classification were calculated using CE-MRA as a reference method. Diagnostic agreement with CE-MRA was evaluated with Cohen’s kappa statistics.
NE-MRA provided high objective and subjective image quality at all levels of the arterial tree. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of relevant stenosis was 91 % and 89 %, respectively; the NPV was 96 % and the PPV 78 %. There was good concordance between CE-MRA and NE-MRA in stenosis scoring.
3D electrocardiography (ECG)-gated TSE NE-MRA with patient-adaptive dual-source RF transmission at 3.0 T is a promising alternative for PAOD patients with contraindications for gadolinium-based contrast agents. It offers high sensitivity and NPV values in the detection of clinically relevant arterial stenosis.
• Flow-sensitive TSE NE-MRA is a promising technique for PAOD evaluation.
• Diagnostic accuracy is comparable to contrast-enhanced MRA.
• NE-MRA eliminates the risk of NSF in patients with renal insufficiency.
• Costs arising from the use of contrast agents can be avoided.
KeywordsNon-contrast enhanced MRA MRA at 3.0 T Dual-source RF transmission Flow-sensitive MRA TSE-based MRA
field of view
maximum intensity projection
magnetic resonance angiography
negative predictive value
nephrogenic systemic fibrosis
peripheral arterial occlusive disease
positive predictive value
region of interest
turbo spin echo
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Michael Rasper. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Methodology: prospective, performed at one institution.
- 4.Deutschmann HA, Schoellnast H, Portugaller HR, Preidler KW, Reittner P, Tillich M et al (2006) Routine use of three-dimensional contrast-enhanced moving-table MR angiography in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease: comparison with selective digital subtraction angiography. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 29:762–770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Hentsch A, Aschauer MA, Balzer JO, Brossmann J, Busch HP, Davis K et al (2003) Gadobutrol-enhanced moving-table magnetic resonance angiography in patients with peripheral vascular disease: a prospective, multi-centre blinded comparison with digital subtraction angiography. Eur Radiol 13:2103–2114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Schaefer FK, Schaefer PJ, Altjohann C, Bourne M, Decobelli F, Goyen M et al (2007) A multicenter, site-independent, blinded study to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography using 1.0M gadobutrol (Gadovist) to intraarterial digital subtraction angiography in body arteries. Eur J Radiol 61:315–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.O’Hare AM, Feinglass J, Sidawy AN, Bacchetti P, Rodriguez RA, Daley J et al (2003) Impact of renal insufficiency on short-term morbidity and mortality after lower extremity revascularization: data from the Department of Veterans Affairs’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Soc Nephrol 4:1287–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Hahn WY, Hecht EM, Friedman B, Babb JS, Jacobowitz GR, Lee VS (2007) Distal lower extremity imaging: prospective comparison of 2-dimensional time of flight, 3- dimensional time-resolved contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography, and 3- dimensional bolus chase contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31:29–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Gutzeit A, Sutter R, Froehlich JM, Roos JE, Sautter T, Schoch E et al (2011) ECG-triggered non-contrast enhanced MR angiography (TRANCE) versus digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease of the lower extremities. Eur Radiol 21:1979–1987CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Haneder S, Attenberger UI, Riffel P, Henzler T, Schoenberg SO, Michaely HJ (2011) Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) of the calf station at 3.0 T: intraindividual comparison of non-enhanced ECG-gated flow-dependent MRA, continuous table movement MRA and time-resolved MRA. Eur Radiol 21:1452–1461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Hansmann J, Morelli JN, Michaely HJ, Riester T, Budjan J, Schoenberg SO et al (2014) Nonenhanced ECG-gated quiescent-interval single shot MRA: Image quality and stenosis assessment at 3 tesla compared with contrast-enhanced MRA and digital subtraction angiography. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:1486–1493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar