European journal of vascular surgery · 1993
Carotid bifurcation imaging: magnetic resonance angiography compared to conventional angiography and Doppler ultrasound.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Buijs P C, Klop R B, Eikelboom B C, Mali W P, Bakker C J, Beek F J, van Gils A P, Dillon E H, Ramos L M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: to evaluate the clinical usefulness of the two dimensional "Time of Flight" (2D TOF) Magnetic Resonance Angiography technique (MRA) in imaging the carotid bifurcation as compared to conventional angiography and pulsed and colour Doppler ultrasound.
METHODS: in 19 patients with possible cerebrovascular disease and eight volunteers, contrast angiography was compared with MRA in 21 carotid bifurcations and with Doppler ultrasound in 23 bifurcations by two independent observers. In 19 bifurcations, all three techniques were available for comparison. Internal carotid arteries were graded normal/minimal disease, mild, moderate or severe stenosis, or occluded.
RESULTS: overall agreement between contrast angiography and MRA existed in 62% for one observer and 76% for the other. When MRA and Doppler agreed, agreement between these two investigations and contrast angiography existed in 77-81%. The major problem with MRA was overestimation of moderately stenosed vessels; 50% of the vessels with a moderate stenosis on contrast angiography were judged severely stenosed on MRA. An occlusion was never mistaken for a stenosis by MRA. Evaluating the separate slices, acquired in the 2D TOF MRA investigation, appeared to be essential to avoid this mistake.
CONCLUSION: at present 2D TOF MRA is not clinically useful for diagnosing the degree of carotid artery stenosis. MRA has a clear tendency to overestimate the degree of stenosis especially moderately severe stenoses. To date, there are no objective methods to correct for this mistake. Technical improvements may make MRA a better diagnostic tool in the future.
METHODS: in 19 patients with possible cerebrovascular disease and eight volunteers, contrast angiography was compared with MRA in 21 carotid bifurcations and with Doppler ultrasound in 23 bifurcations by two independent observers. In 19 bifurcations, all three techniques were available for comparison. Internal carotid arteries were graded normal/minimal disease, mild, moderate or severe stenosis, or occluded.
RESULTS: overall agreement between contrast angiography and MRA existed in 62% for one observer and 76% for the other. When MRA and Doppler agreed, agreement between these two investigations and contrast angiography existed in 77-81%. The major problem with MRA was overestimation of moderately stenosed vessels; 50% of the vessels with a moderate stenosis on contrast angiography were judged severely stenosed on MRA. An occlusion was never mistaken for a stenosis by MRA. Evaluating the separate slices, acquired in the 2D TOF MRA investigation, appeared to be essential to avoid this mistake.
CONCLUSION: at present 2D TOF MRA is not clinically useful for diagnosing the degree of carotid artery stenosis. MRA has a clear tendency to overestimate the degree of stenosis especially moderately severe stenoses. To date, there are no objective methods to correct for this mistake. Technical improvements may make MRA a better diagnostic tool in the future.