Renal artery assessment with non-enhanced MR angiography versus digital subtraction angiography: comparison between 1.5 and 3.0 T

被引:15
|
作者
Guo, Xiaoxia [1 ]
Gong, Ying [2 ]
Wu, Zhiyuan [1 ]
Yan, Fuhua [3 ]
Ding, Xiaoyi [1 ]
Xu, Xueqin [3 ]
机构
[1] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Ruijin Hosp, Dept Intervent Radiol, Sch Med, Shanghai 200025, Peoples R China
[2] Fudan Univ, Dept Radiol, Childrens Hosp, Shanghai 201102, Peoples R China
[3] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Sch Med, Ruijin Hosp, Dept Radiol, Shanghai 200025, Peoples R China
关键词
Renal artery obstruction; Magnetic resonance angiography; Angiography; digital subtraction; STATE FREE PRECESSION; MAGNETIC-RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; STENOSIS; DIAGNOSIS; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-019-06440-0
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
Objectives To compare non-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (NE-MRA) between 1.5 and 3.0-T using a balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) sequence in the assessment of renal artery stenosis (RAS) with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as a reference standard. Methods From March 2016 to May 2018, 81 patients suspected to have significant RAS were scheduled for DSA. All patients underwent NE-MRA at either 1.5 T or 3.0 T randomly before DSA. In total, 49 patients underwent 1.5-T NE-MRA, and 32 patients underwent 3.0-T NE-MRA. Image quality was assessed. Degree of stenosis evaluated with NE-MRA was compared with that with DSA. Results NE-MRA provided excellent image qualities for segment 1 and segment 2 at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Image qualities for segment 3 and segment 4 and the degree of renal artery branches were significantly higher at 3.0 T than at 1.5 T (p < 0.01). Stenoses evaluated with NE-MRA at 1.5 T (r = 0.853, p < 0.01) and 3.0 T (r = 0.811, p < 0.01) were highly correlated with those of DSA. The Bland-Altman plots showed overestimated degrees of stenosis at 1.5 T (mean bias, 3.5% +/- 20.4) and 3.0 T (mean bias, 8.4% +/- 21.7). The sensitivity and specificity for significant stenosis were 97.4% and 89.8% for 1.5 T and 95.7% and 91.1% for 3.0 T. Conclusions Both 1.5-T and 3.0-T bSSFP NE-MRA can reliably assess RAS, with high image quality and good diagnostic accuracy. Performing NE-MRA at 3.0 T significantly improved visualization of renal artery branches but showed greater tendency to overestimate stenosis compared with that at 1.5 T.
引用
收藏
页码:1747 / 1754
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Renal artery assessment with non-enhanced MR angiography versus digital subtraction angiography: comparison between 1.5 and 3.0 T
    Xiaoxia Guo
    Ying Gong
    Zhiyuan Wu
    Fuhua Yan
    Xiaoyi Ding
    Xueqin Xu
    European Radiology, 2020, 30 : 1747 - 1754
  • [2] Non-enhanced MR angiography of renal arteries: comparison with contrast-enhanced MR angiography
    Angeretti, M. G.
    Lumia, D.
    Cani, A.
    Barresi, M.
    Cardim, L. Nocchi
    Piacentino, F.
    Maresca, A. M.
    Novario, R.
    Genovese, E. A.
    Fugazzola, C.
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2013, 54 (07) : 749 - 756
  • [3] Comparison of intraarterial MR angiography at 3.0 T with X-ray digital subtraction angiography for detection of renal artery stenosis in swine
    Rhee, Thomas K.
    Park, Jonathan K.
    Cashen, Ty A.
    Shin, Wanyong
    Schirf, Brian E.
    Gehl, James A.
    Larson, Andrew C.
    Carr, James C.
    Li, Debiao
    Carroll, Timothy J.
    Omary, Reed A.
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2006, 17 (07) : 1131 - 1137
  • [4] Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease: 3.0-T versus 1.5-T MR Angiography Compared with Digital Subtraction Angiography
    van den Bosch, Harrie C. M.
    Westenberg, Jos J. M.
    Caris, Ralph
    Duijm, Lucien E. M.
    Tielbeek, Alexander V.
    Cuypers, Philip W. M.
    de Roos, Albert
    RADIOLOGY, 2013, 266 (01) : 337 - 346
  • [5] Visualization of intrarenal vessels by 3.0-T MR angiography in comparison with digital subtraction angiography using renal specimens
    Schenk, Jens-Peter
    Friebe, Bjoern
    Ley, Sebastian
    Baudendistel, Klaus
    Schoebinger, Max
    Haehnel, Stefan
    Mehrabi, Arianeb
    Troeger, Jochen
    Hallscheidt, Peter
    PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY, 2006, 36 (10) : 1075 - 1081
  • [6] Visualization of intrarenal vessels by 3.0-T MR angiography in comparison with digital subtraction angiography using renal specimens
    Jens-Peter Schenk
    Björn Friebe
    Sebastian Ley
    Klaus Baudendistel
    Max Schoebinger
    Stefan Hähnel
    Arianeb Mehrabi
    Jochen Tröger
    Peter Hallscheidt
    Pediatric Radiology, 2006, 36 : 1075 - 1081
  • [7] Non-enhanced, ECG-gated MR angiography of the pedal vasculature: comparison with contrast-enhanced MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography in peripheral arterial occlusive disease
    Tilman Schubert
    Martin Takes
    Markus Aschwanden
    Markus Klarhoefer
    Tanja Haas
    Augustinus L. Jacob
    David Liu
    Andreas Gutzeit
    Sebastian Kos
    European Radiology, 2016, 26 : 2705 - 2713
  • [8] Non-enhanced, ECG-gated MR angiography of the pedal vasculature: comparison with contrast-enhanced MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography in peripheral arterial occlusive disease
    Schubert, Tilman
    Takes, Martin
    Aschwanden, Markus
    Klarhoefer, Markus
    Haas, Tanja
    Jacob, Augustinus L.
    Liu, David
    Gutzeit, Andreas
    Kos, Sebastian
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2016, 26 (08) : 2705 - 2713
  • [9] Assessment of aortoiliac and renal arteries: MR angiography with parallel acquisition versus conventional MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography
    Sutter, Reto
    Nanz, Daniel
    Lutz, Amelie M.
    Plammatter, Thomas
    Seifert, Burkhardt
    Struwe, Anja
    Heilmaier, Christina
    Weishaupt, Dominik
    Marincek, Borut
    Willmann, Juergen K.
    RADIOLOGY, 2007, 245 (01) : 276 - 284
  • [10] Assessment of Transplant Renal Artery Stenosis with Non-contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography: Comparison with Digital Subtraction Angiography
    Pan, Liang
    Shen, Liwen
    Fan, Min
    Xing, Zhaoyu
    Ding, Jiule
    Du, Yanan
    Guo, Songlin
    Chen, Jie
    Xing, Wei
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2024, 31 (06) : 2405 - 2411