Diagnostic accuracy of non-contrast quiescent-interval slice-selective (QISS) MRA combined with MRI-based vascular calcification visualization for the assessment of arterial stenosis in patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease.
Diagnostic accuracy of non-contrast quiescent-interval slice-selective (QISS) MRA combined with MRI-based vascular calcification visualization for the assessment of arterial stenosis in patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease.
复制标题
在下肢外周动脉疾病患者中，非对比度静脉间隔切片选择性（QISS）MRA的诊断准确性与基于MRI的血管钙化可视化相结合，以评估动脉狭窄。
DOI：
10.1007/s00330-020-07386-4
复制
发表时间：
2021-05
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Schoepf UJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Varga-Szemes A;Penmetsa M;Emrich T;Todoran TM;Suranyi P;Fuller SR;Edelman RR;Koktzoglou I;Schoepf UJ
质子密度加权同相星形叠加（PDIP-SOS） MRI技术提供了外周动脉疾病（PAD）钙化的可视化。本研究旨在探讨联合非对比静止间隔切片选择（QISS） MRA和PDIP-SOS MRI方案检测PAD的诊断准确性，与CTA和数字减影血管造影（DSA）相比。26例前瞻性PAD患者（70±8岁）在DSA前接受了下肢CTA和1.5T或3T PDIP-SOS/QISS MRI。两名读者对图像质量进行了评分，并对无/有钙化可视化的QISS MRA进行了狭窄分级（≥50%）。根据DSA计算敏感性、特异性和曲线下面积（AUC）。采用配对t检验、Pearson’s相关性和Bland-Altman分析对MRI和非对比CT （NCCT）的钙化进行量化和比较。CTA的图像质量评分明显高于MRA（4.0[3.0 - 4.0]和3.0 [3.0 - 4.0];p=0.0369）。QISS MRA、QISS MRA + PDIP-SOS、CTA检测≥50%狭窄的敏感性和特异性分别为85.4%、92.2%、90.2%和90.3%、93.2%、94.2%，auc分别为0.879、0.928、0.923。当PDIP-SOS加入MRA方案时，观察到AUC显著增加（p=0.0266）。钙化定量显示PDIP-SOS与NCCT差异显著（80.6±31.2mm3 vs 88.0±29.8mm3, p=0.0002），相关性高（r=0.77, p<0.0001），平均差异中等（- 7.4mm3）。QISS MRA联合PDIP-SOS MRI为PAD的检测提供了改进的，与CTA相当的准确性，尽管其图像质量仍然不如CTA。
The proton density-weighted, in-phase stack-of-stars (PDIP-SOS) MRI technique provides calcification visualization in peripheral artery disease (PAD). This study sought to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of a combined non-contrast quiescent-interval slice-selective (QISS) MRA and PDIP-SOS MRI protocol for the detection of PAD, in comparison with CTA and digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Twenty-six prospectively enrolled PAD patients (70±8 years) underwent lower extremity CTA and 1.5T or 3T PDIP-SOS/QISS MRI prior to DSA. Two readers rated image quality and graded stenosis (≥50%) on QISS MRA without/with calcification visualization. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated against DSA. Calcification was quantified and compared between MRI and non-contrast CT (NCCT) using paired t-test, Pearson’s correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. Image quality ratings were significantly higher for CTA compared to MRA (4.0 [3.0–4.0] and 3.0 [3.0–4.0]; p=0.0369). The sensitivity and specificity of QISS MRA, QISS MRA with PDIP-SOS, and CTA for ≥50% stenosis detection were 85.4%, 92.2%, 90.2% and 90.3%, 93.2%, 94.2%, respectively, while AUCs were 0.879, 0.928, and 0.923, respectively. A significant increase in AUC was observed when PDIP-SOS was added to the MRA protocol (p=0.0266). Quantification of calcification showed significant differences between PDIP-SOS and NCCT (80.6±31.2mm3 vs 88.0±29.8mm3; p=0.0002) with high correlation (r=0.77, p<0.0001) and moderate mean of differences (−7.4mm3). QISS MRA combined with PDIP-SOS MRI provides improved, CTA equivalent, accuracy for the detection of PAD, although its image quality remains inferior to CTA.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Ward, Emily V.;Galizia, Mauricio S.;Usman, Asad;Popescu, Andrada R.;Dunkle, Eugene;Edelman, Robert R.
通讯作者：
Edelman, Robert R.
影响因子：
6.4
作者：
Serhal, Ali;Koktzoglou, Ioannis;Edelman, Robert R.
通讯作者：
Edelman, Robert R.
影响因子：
5.5
作者：
Mathur, Mahan;Jones, Jason R.;Weinreb, Jeffrey C.
通讯作者：
Weinreb, Jeffrey C.
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Fraioli, F;Catalano, C;Passariello, R
通讯作者：
Passariello, R
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Botelho, Marcos P. Ferreira;Koktzoglou, Ioannis;Collins, Jeremy D.;Giri, Shivraman;Carr, James C.;Gupta, NavYash;Edelman, Robert R.
通讯作者：
Edelman, Robert R.