Continuously moving table aorto-iliofemoral run-off contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography: image quality analysis in comparison to the multistep acquisition

Evaluation of the Abdominal Aorta and External Iliac Arteries Using Three-Dimensional Time-of-Flight, Three Dimensional Electrocardiograph-Gated Fast Spin-Echo, and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography in Clinically Healthy Cats

Arterial thromboembolism is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates in cats. Definitive diagnosis requires advanced imaging modalities, such as computed tomography angiography (CTA) and contrast-enhanced (CE) magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). However, CTA involves exposure to a large amount of ionized radiation, and CE-MRA can cause systemic nephrogenic fibrosis. Non-contrast-enhanced (NE) MRA can help accurately diagnose vascular lesions without such limitations. In this study, we evaluated the ability of NE-MRA using three-dimensional electrocardiograph-gated fast spin-echo (3D ECG-FSE) and 3D time-of-flight (3D TOF) imaging to visualize the aorta and external iliac arteries in clinically healthy cats and compared the results with those obtained using CE-MRA. All 11 cats underwent 3D ECG-FSE, 3D TOF, and CE-MRA sequences. Relative signal intensity (rSI) for quantitative image analysis and image quality scores (IQS) for qualitative image analysis were assessed; the rSI values based on the 3D TOF evaluations were significantly lower than those obtained using 3D ECG-FSE (aorta 3D TOF: 0.57 ± 0.06, aorta 3D ECG-FSE: 0.83 ± 0.06, P < 0.001; external iliac arteries 3D TOF: 0.45 ± 0.06, external iliac arteries 3D ECG-FSE:0.80 ± 0.05, P < 0.001) and similar to those obtained using CE-MRA (aorta: 0.58 ± 0.05, external iliac arteries: 0.57 ± 0.03). Moreover, IQS obtained using 3D TOF were significantly higher than those obtained using 3D ECG-FSE (aorta 3D TOF: 3.95 ± 0.15, aorta 3D ECG-FSE: 2.32 ± 0.60, P < 0.001; external iliac arteries 3D ECG-FSE: 3.98 ± 0.08, external iliac arteries 3D ECG-FSE: 2.23 ± 0.56, P < 0.001) and similar to those obtained using CE-MRA (aorta: 3.61 ± 0.41, external iliac arteries: 3.57 ± 0.41). Thus, 3D TOF is more suitable and produces consistent image quality for visualizing the aorta and external iliac arteries in clinically healthy cats and this will be of great help in the diagnosis of FATE.

Image Quality and Stenosis Assessment of Non-Contrast-Enhanced 3-T Magnetic Resonance Angiography in Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease Compared with Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography and Digital Subtraction Angiography

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of flow-sensitive dephasing (FSD)-prepared steady-state free precession (SSFP) magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) at 3 T for imaging infragenual arteries relative to contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) and digital subtraction angiography (DSA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A series of 16 consecutive patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) underwent a combined peripheral MRA protocol consisting of FSD-MRA for the calves and large field-of-view CE-MRA. DSA was performed on all patients within 1 week of the MR angiographies. Image quality and degree of stenosis was assessed by two readers with rich experience. Inter-observer agreement was determined using kappa statistics. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis determined the diagnostic value of FSD-MRA, CE-MRA, and CE-MRA combined with FSD-MRA (CE+FSD MRA) in predicting vascular stenosis.

RESULTS

At the calf station, no significantly difference of subjective image quality scores was found between FSD-MRA and CE-MRA. Inter-reader agreement was excellent for both FSD-MRA and CE-MRA. Both of FSD-MRA and CE-MRA carry a stenosis overestimation risk relative to DSA standard. With DSA as the reference standard, ROC curve analysis showed that the area under the curve was largest for CE+FSD MRA. The greatest sensitivity and specificity were obtained when a cut-off stenosis score of 2 was used.

CONCLUSION

In patients with severe PAD,3 T FSD-MRA provides good-quality diagnostic images without a contrast agent and is a good supplement for CE-MRA. CE+FSD MRA can improve the accuracy of vascular stenosis diagnosis.

Noncontrast MR angiography (MRA) of infragenual arteries using flow-sensitive dephasing (FSD)-prepared steady-state free precession (SSFP) at 3.0 Tesla: Comparison with contrast-enhanced MRA

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic performance of flow-sensitive dephasing (FSD)-prepared steady-state free precession (SSFP) MR angiography (MRA) for imaging infragenual arteries at 3.0T, with contrast enhanced MR angiography (CE MRA) as reference.

METHODS

Twenty consecutive patients with suspicion of lower extremity arterial disease undergoing routine CE MRA were recruited. FSD MRA was performed at calf before CE MRA. Image quality and stenosis degree of infragenual arteries from both techniques were independently evaluated and compared. Six patients in this study underwent DSA examination.

RESULTS

Three undiagnostic segments were excluded with severe venous contamination in CE MRA. A total of 197 calf arterial segments images were analyzed. No significant difference existed in the relative signal intensity (rSI) of arterial segments between FSD MRA and CE MRA techniques (0.92 ± 0.09 versus 0.93 ± 0.05; P = 0.207). However, the subjective image quality score was slightly higher in FSD MRA (3.66 ± 0.81 versus 3.49 ± 0.87; P = 0.050). With CE MRA images as reference standard, slight overestimation existed in FSD MRA (2.19 ± 1.24 versus 2.09 ± 1.18; P = 0.019), with total agreement of 84.3% on the basis of all arterial segments. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of FSD MRA was 96.4%, 93.0%, 98.5%, and 84.1%. No significant difference in the stenosis degree score was detected between MRA (FSD MRA and CE MRA) and DSA (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

FSD MRA performed on at 3.0T without the use of contrast medium provides diagnostic images allowing for arterial stenosis assessment of calf arteries that was highly comparable with CE MRA. Moreover, venous contamination was less problematic with FSD MRA.