Comparison of multistation MR angiography with integrated parallel acquisition technique versus conventional technique with a dedicated phased-array coil system in peripheral vascular disease.

PURPOSE To assess the impact of integrated parallel acquisition technique (iPAT) on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), venous contamination, and overall image interpretability for peripheral magnetic resonance (MR) angiography with use of a dedicated phased-array coil system. MATERIALS AND METHODS Three-dimensional contrast material-enhanced conventional MR angiography and iPAT peripheral MR angiography was performed at three stations (pelvis, thigh, calf) in 38 consecutive patients on a 1.5-T high-performance cardiovascular system (conventional MR angiography, n=19; iPAT MR angiography, n=19). A total of 29 vessel segments per patient were analyzed. For each segment, arterial, muscle, and background signal were measured; SNR and CNR were calculated; and repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed. For each of the three stations, the degree of venous contamination and the overall confidence of interpretability were analyzed with use of ordinal logistic regression analysis accounting for correlated outcome data. RESULTS A total of 1,018 vessel segments were available for analysis (477 with conventional MR angiography, 541 with iPAT MR angiography). Compared with conventional MR angiography, iPAT MR angiography resulted in decreased SNR and CNR in the pelvis and thigh stations but no change in the calf station. The difference in the pelvis was statistically significant (P<.007 for SNR and P<0.01 for CNR). Venous contamination in the calf station was significantly less on iPAT MR angiography (P<.003), with no significant differences in the other stations. The overall confidence of interpretability with iPAT MR angiography was significantly better on the lower station (P<.008). CONCLUSIONS iPAT MR angiography leads to reduced SNR and CNR in the pelvis and thigh, but this does not affect interpretability of images obtained at these stations. The temporal gain results in significantly increased interpretability as a result of less venous contamination in the calf station. iPAT MR angiography is superior to conventional MR angiography for peripheral imaging.

[1]  S. Schoenberg,et al.  Critical limb ischemia: hybrid MR angiography compared with DSA. , 2005, Radiology.

[2]  Yi Wang,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of time-resolved 2D projection MR angiography for symptomatic infrapopliteal arterial occlusive disease. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  Tim Leiner,et al.  Contrast‐enhanced peripheral MR angiography using SENSE in multiple stations: Feasibility study , 2005, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[4]  Bernard Y Ho,et al.  Decreased venous contamination on 3D gadolinium-enhanced bolus chase peripheral mr angiography using thigh compression. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  James W Goldfarb,et al.  Parallel magnetic resonance imaging using coils with localized sensitivities. , 2004, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[6]  M. Hunink,et al.  Peripheral arterial disease: sensitivity-encoded multiposition MR angiography compared with intraarterial angiography and conventional multiposition MR angiography. , 2004, Radiology.

[7]  M. Reiser,et al.  Moving-table MR angiography of the peripheral runoff vessels: comparison of body coil and dedicated phased array coil systems. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  Raja Muthupillai,et al.  Implications of SENSE MR in routine clinical practice. , 2003, European journal of radiology.

[9]  Yi Wang,et al.  Peripheral vascular disease: combined 3D bolus chase and dynamic 2D MR angiography compared with x-ray angiography for treatment planning. , 2002, Radiology.

[10]  W. Eubank,et al.  Utilizing SENSE to achieve lower station sub‐millimeter isotropic resolution and minimal venous enhancement in peripheral MR angiography , 2002, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[11]  F. Korosec,et al.  Aorta and runoff vessels: single-injection MR angiography with automated table movement compared with multiinjection time-resolved MR angiography--initial results. , 2001, Radiology.

[12]  K. Kent,et al.  Contrast-Enhanced Peripheral MR Angiography from the Abdominal Aorta to the Pedal Arteries: Combined Dynamic Two-Dimensional and Bolus-Chase Three-Dimensional Acquisitions , 2001, Investigative radiology.

[13]  P. Boesiger,et al.  Contrast‐enhanced 3D MRA using SENSE , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[14]  J. Debatin,et al.  Pelvic and lower extremity arterial imaging: diagnostic performance of three-dimensional contrast-enhanced MR angiography. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  J. V. van Engelshoven,et al.  Three‐dimensional contrast‐enhanced moving‐bed infusion‐tracking (MoBI‐track) peripheral MR angiography with flexible choice of imaging parameters for each field of view , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[16]  K Scheffler,et al.  Contrast-enhanced subtraction MR angiography in occlusive disease of the pelvic and lower limb arteries: results of a prospective intraindividual comparative study with digital subtraction angiography in 76 patients. , 1999, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[17]  A. Kassner,et al.  Stepping-table gadolinium-enhanced digital subtraction MR angiography of the aorta and lower extremity arteries: preliminary experience. , 1999, Radiology.

[18]  J. V. van Engelshoven,et al.  Peripheral vascular tree stenoses: evaluation with moving-bed infusion-tracking MR angiography. , 1998, Radiology.

[19]  R Frayne,et al.  Time‐resolved contrast‐enhanced 3D MR angiography , 1996, Magnetic resonance in medicine.