TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic Accuracy of Noncontrast MR Angiography Protocols at 3T for the Detection and Characterization of Lower Extremity Peripheral Arterial Disease
AU - Hanrahan, Christopher J.
AU - Lindley, Marc D.
AU - Mueller, Michelle
AU - Kim, Daniel
AU - Sommers, Daniel
AU - Morrell, Glen
AU - Redd, Andrew
AU - Carlston, Kristi
AU - Lee, Vivian S.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant R01 HL092439 and the George E. Wahlen Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah. The University of Utah Study Design and Biostatistics Center supported this investigation with funding from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health , Grant 1ULTR001067 .
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 SIR
PY - 2018/11
Y1 - 2018/11
N2 - Purpose: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of established non–gadolinium (Gd)-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography protocols with Gd-enhanced MR angiography at 3T for evaluating lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Materials and Methods: From February 2014 to 2015, 20 patients with PAD and intermittent claudication (16 men; age range, 51–76 y; Fontaine stage II) underwent 3-station (abdominopelvic, thigh, and calf) non-Gd MR angiography and bolus-chase Gd MR angiography protocols performed at 3T (Siemens Tim Trio), including quiescent-interval single-shot (QISS) MR angiography for all 3 stations and a combination of quadruple inversion recovery (QIR) MR angiography for the abdominopelvic station and electrocardiogram-gated fast spin echo (ECG-FSE) MR angiography for the extremities. Two radiologists independently evaluated vessel segments for vascular stenosis, diagnosis confidence, graft presence, and Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II classification for each station. Diagnostic accuracies and κ agreement were assessed. Results: Of 573 vascular segments imaged, 16.9% (97/573, 19/20 patients) demonstrated hemodynamically significant abnormalities. Reader confidence was sufficient for diagnosis in 98% of segments with Gd MR angiography, 93% with QIR/ECG-FSE, and 95% with QISS. Overall reader confidence was higher with QISS than QIR/ECG-FSE within all 3 stations combined (P <.05). With low-confidence segments treated as misdiagnosis, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, and κ agreement for all 3 stations combined were 81.4/87.2/57.0/95.8/86.2%/0.578 for QIR/ECG-FSE and 75.0/90.6/61.6/94.7/88.0%/0.597 for QISS. Using TASC II criteria to assess severity, QISS and QIR/ECG-FSE had no statistical difference in agreement with Gd MR angiography. Conclusions: QISS and QIR/ECG-FSE MR angiography protocols demonstrate comparable diagnostic accuracies with high specificity. Either protocol provides an alternative to Gd MR angiography at 3T for patients with PAD.
AB - Purpose: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of established non–gadolinium (Gd)-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography protocols with Gd-enhanced MR angiography at 3T for evaluating lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Materials and Methods: From February 2014 to 2015, 20 patients with PAD and intermittent claudication (16 men; age range, 51–76 y; Fontaine stage II) underwent 3-station (abdominopelvic, thigh, and calf) non-Gd MR angiography and bolus-chase Gd MR angiography protocols performed at 3T (Siemens Tim Trio), including quiescent-interval single-shot (QISS) MR angiography for all 3 stations and a combination of quadruple inversion recovery (QIR) MR angiography for the abdominopelvic station and electrocardiogram-gated fast spin echo (ECG-FSE) MR angiography for the extremities. Two radiologists independently evaluated vessel segments for vascular stenosis, diagnosis confidence, graft presence, and Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II classification for each station. Diagnostic accuracies and κ agreement were assessed. Results: Of 573 vascular segments imaged, 16.9% (97/573, 19/20 patients) demonstrated hemodynamically significant abnormalities. Reader confidence was sufficient for diagnosis in 98% of segments with Gd MR angiography, 93% with QIR/ECG-FSE, and 95% with QISS. Overall reader confidence was higher with QISS than QIR/ECG-FSE within all 3 stations combined (P <.05). With low-confidence segments treated as misdiagnosis, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, and κ agreement for all 3 stations combined were 81.4/87.2/57.0/95.8/86.2%/0.578 for QIR/ECG-FSE and 75.0/90.6/61.6/94.7/88.0%/0.597 for QISS. Using TASC II criteria to assess severity, QISS and QIR/ECG-FSE had no statistical difference in agreement with Gd MR angiography. Conclusions: QISS and QIR/ECG-FSE MR angiography protocols demonstrate comparable diagnostic accuracies with high specificity. Either protocol provides an alternative to Gd MR angiography at 3T for patients with PAD.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054600357&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054600357&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jvir.2018.06.015
DO - 10.1016/j.jvir.2018.06.015
M3 - Article
C2 - 30318162
AN - SCOPUS:85054600357
SN - 1051-0443
VL - 29
SP - 1585-1594.e2
JO - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
JF - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
IS - 11
ER -