Comparison of quiescent inflow single-shot and native space for nonenhanced peripheral MR angiography.
Comparison of quiescent inflow single-shot and native space for nonenhanced peripheral MR angiography.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/jmri.24124
复制
发表时间：
2013-12
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Edelman, Robert R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ward, Emily V.;Galizia, Mauricio S.;Usman, Asad;Popescu, Andrada R.;Dunkle, Eugene;Edelman, Robert R.
关键词：
使用对比增强 MR 血管造影 (CEMRA) 作为参考标准，评估两种非增强 MRA 方法：静态间隔单次 (QISS) 和 Native SPACE（NATIVE= 动脉和静脉非造影血管造影；SPACE= 通过使用不同翻转角 Evolution 实现应用优化对比度的完美采样）。一项符合 HIPAA 的前瞻性研究招募了 20 名转诊接受下肢 MRA 的患者（14 名男性，平均年龄 69.3 岁）。以混合双注射对比增强 MRA 作为参考，以 1.5T 进行下肢 QISS 和 Native SPACE。由两名盲法放射科医生分段评估图像质量和狭窄严重程度。将方法与逻辑回归进行比较以获得诊断准确性的相关数据。在 496 个动脉段中，24 个在 Native SPACE 图像上被认为无法诊断。没有 QISS 或 CEMRA 成像片段被认为是非诊断性的。 QISS 的图像质量明显高于 Native SPACE。 QISS 狭窄敏感性 (84.9%) 与 Native SPACE (87.3%) 没有显着差异。 QISS 的特异性 (95.6%) 优于 Native SPACE (87.0%)，p=0.0041。与 QISS 相比，Native SPACE 对于腹部和骨盆部分的成像来说不太稳健。在此初步研究中，Native SPACE 和 QISS 对血流动力学显着狭窄很敏感。 QISS NEMRA 表现出卓越的特异性和图像质量，并且在腹部和骨盆区域更加稳健。
To evaluate two nonenhanced MRA methods: quiescent-interval single-shot (QISS) and Native SPACE (NATIVE= Non-contrast Angiography of the Arteries and Veins; SPACE = Sampling Perfection with Application Optimized Contrast by using different flip angle Evolution), using contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CEMRA) as a reference standard. 20 patients (14 male, mean 69.3 years old) referred for lower extremity MRA were recruited in a HIPAA-compliant prospective study. QISS and Native SPACE of the lower extremities were performed at 1.5T with a hybrid dual-injection contrast-enhanced MRA as reference. Image quality and stenosis severity were assessed in segments by two blinded radiologists. Methods were compared with logistic regression for correlated data for diagnostic accuracy. Of 496 arterial segments, 24 were considered non-diagnostic on the Native SPACE images. There were no QISS or CEMRA imaging segments considered to be non-diagnostic. Image quality was significantly higher for QISS than for Native SPACE. QISS stenosis sensitivity (84.9%) was not significantly different from Native SPACE (87.3%). QISS had better specificity (95.6%) than Native SPACE (87.0%), p=0.0041. In comparison with QISS, Native SPACE proved less robust for imaging of the abdominal and pelvic segments. Native SPACE and QISS were sensitive for hemodynamically significant stenosis in this pilot study. QISS NEMRA demonstrated superior specificity and image quality, and was more robust in the abdominal and pelvic regions.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
19.7
作者：
Prince, Martin R.;Zhang, Honglei;Valeri, Anthony M.
通讯作者：
Valeri, Anthony M.
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
BAUM, RA;RUTTER, CM;MCNEIL, BJ
通讯作者：
MCNEIL, BJ
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Edelman, Robert R.;Sheehan, John J.;Dunkle, Eugene;Schindler, Nancy;Carr, James;Koktzoglou, Ioannis
通讯作者：
Koktzoglou, Ioannis
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Lim, Ruth P.;Hecht, Elizabeth M.;Lee, Vivian S.
通讯作者：
Lee, Vivian S.
影响因子：
19.7
作者：
Hodnett, Philip A.;Koktzoglou, Ioannis;Edelman, Robert R.
通讯作者：
Edelman, Robert R.