Preoperative Planning for Endovascular Aortic Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Feasibility of Nonenhanced MR Angiography versus Contrast-enhanced CT Angiography

被引:19
|
作者
Goshima, Satoshi [1 ]
Kanematsu, Masayuki [1 ,2 ]
Kondo, Hiroshi [1 ]
Kawada, Hiroshi [1 ]
Kojima, Toshihisa [1 ]
Sakurai, Kota [1 ]
Watanabe, Haruo [1 ]
Shimabukuro, Katsuya [3 ]
Matsuno, Yukihiro [3 ]
Ishida, Narihiro [3 ]
Takemura, Hirofumi [3 ]
Bae, Kyongtae T. [4 ]
机构
[1] Gifu Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, Gifu 5011194, Japan
[2] Gifu Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol Serv, Gifu 5011194, Japan
[3] Gifu Univ Hosp, Dept Gen & Cardiothorac Surg, Gifu 5011194, Japan
[4] Univ Pittsburgh, Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Pittsburgh, PA USA
关键词
ARTERIES; PLACEMENT;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.13121557
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To compare vascular measurements to determine stent types and configurations for abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) by comparing results of contrast material-enhanced computed tomographic (CT) angiography and nonenhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was institutional review board approved, and all patients provided written informed consent. Fifty patients (45 men and five women; mean age, 76.0 years) admitted for elective abdominal EVAR underwent preoperative abdominal CT angiography (triplanar reformatted images; section thickness of 1-3 mm) and nonenhanced MR angiography (triplanar two-dimensional single-shot turbo field-echo images; section thickness of 6 mm). Two observers independently completed standard measurement and device selection forms for endovascular stent planning for CT and MR angiography. Pearson and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate intermodality and interobserver differences. Results: No significant difference was found in aortic neck diameter (observer 1: CT, 18.5 mm; MR, 19.0 mm; P = .43) (observer 2: CT, 19.6 mm; MR, 19.3 mm; P = .59), aortic neck diameter 15 mm distal to the lowest renal artery (observer 1: CT, 19.2 mm; MR, 19.2 mm; P = .38) (observer 2: CT, 19.6 mm; MR, 19.6 mm; P = .91), aortic neck length (observer 1: CT, 43.6 mm; MR, 43.6 mm; P = .85) (observer 2: CT, 44.4 mm; MR, 44.0 mm; P = .93), or other key vascular measurements (P = .23-. 99) for preoperative planning. These included aneurysm diameter, lowest renal artery to aortic bifurcation length, aortic bifurcation diameter, common iliac artery diameters, external iliac artery diameters, length between orifices of lower renal and internal iliac arteries, and iliac artery sealing length. CT and MR angiography measurements showed very strong correlation (r = 0.92-0.99). Intraclass correlation coefficients between observers ranged from 0.90 to 0.98. Stent types and configurations determined with CT measurements remained unaltered when reassessed with MR measurements. Conclusion: Measurements obtained with nonenhanced MR angiography appear equally accurate to those of CT angiography in the preoperative planning of abdominal EVAR. (C) RSNA, 2013
引用
收藏
页码:948 / 955
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Nonenhanced MRI Planning for Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Comparison With Contrast-Enhanced CT Angiography
    Piacentino, Filippo
    Fontana, Federico
    Micieli, Camilla
    Angeretti, Maria G.
    Cardim, Larissa Nocchi
    Coppola, Andrea
    Molinelli, Valeria
    Piffaretti, Gabriele
    Novario, Raffaele
    Fugazzola, Carlo
    [J]. VASCULAR AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2018, 52 (01) : 39 - 45
  • [2] Endovascular graft exclusion for abdominal aortic aneurysms: 3D contrast-enhanced MR angiography
    Liu, Q
    Lu, JP
    Wang, F
    Wang, L
    Tian, JM
    [J]. ABDOMINAL IMAGING, 2006, 31 (03): : 347 - 360
  • [3] Endovascular graft exclusion for abdominal aortic aneurysms: 3D contrast-enhanced MR angiography
    Q. Liu
    J. P. Lu
    F. Wang
    L. Wang
    J. M. Tian
    [J]. Abdominal Imaging, 2006, 31 : 347 - 360
  • [4] Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound versus Computed Tomographic Angiography for Surveillance of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair
    Ten Bosch, Jan A.
    Rouwet, Ellen V.
    Peters, Cecile T. H.
    Jansen, Linda
    Verhagen, Hence J. M.
    Prins, Martin H.
    Teijink, Joep A. W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2010, 21 (05) : 638 - 643
  • [5] Feasibility of using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography as the sole imaging modality prior to endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms
    Ludman, CN
    Yusuf, SW
    Whitaker, SC
    Gregson, RHS
    Walker, S
    Hopkinson, BR
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2000, 19 (05) : 524 - 530
  • [6] MR angiography for patient surveillance after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms
    Schwope, Ryan B.
    Alper, Huntley J.
    Talenfeld, Adam D.
    Cohen, Emil I.
    Lookstein, Robert A.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2007, 188 (04) : W334 - W340
  • [7] Use of CT angiography to classify endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms
    Stavropoulos, SW
    Clark, TWI
    Carpenter, JP
    Fairman, RM
    Litt, H
    Velazquez, OC
    Insko, E
    Farner, M
    Baum, RA
    [J]. JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2005, 16 (05) : 663 - 667
  • [8] Measurements before endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms -: MR imaging with MRA vs. angiography and CT
    Engellau, L
    Albrechtsson, U
    Dahlström, N
    Norgren, L
    Persson, A
    Larsson, EM
    [J]. ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2003, 44 (02) : 177 - 184
  • [9] Comparative analysis of helical CT angiography vs MR angiography in the preoperative assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms with surgical correlation
    Lucey, B
    Thornton, J
    Varghese, JC
    Haslam, PJ
    McGrath, FP
    Lee, MJ
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1999, 213P : 438 - 438
  • [10] Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography versus computed tomographic angiography in the monitoring of patients after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm - preliminary experience
    Ustymowicz, Andrzej
    Janica, Jacek
    Kowalewski, Radoslaw
    Lewszuk, Andrzej
    Lukasiewicz, Adam
    Michalak, Pawel
    Waszczeniuk-Sobotko, Olga
    [J]. NUCLEAR MEDICINE REVIEW, 2009, 12 (02) : 95 - 98