Non-contrast-enhanced MR-angiography (MRA) of lower extremity peripheral arterial disease at 3 tesla: Examination time and diagnostic performance of 2D quiescent-interval single-shot MRA vs. 3D fast spin-Echo MRA.

PURPOSE: Non-contrast enhanced MRA is a promising diagnostic alternative to contrast-enhanced (CE-) MRA or CT in patients with lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD) but potentially associated with prolonged examination times and inferior diagnostic performance. We aimed to compare examination times and diagnostic performance of non-contrast enhanced quiescent-interval slice-selective (QISS)-MRA and fast-spin-echo (FSE)-MRA at 3.0 T.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

Forty-five patients with PAD were recruited for this IRB approved prospective study. Subjects underwent lower extremity MRA with 1) QISS-MRA, 2) FSE-MRA, and 3) CE-MRA (continuous table movement MRA and time-resolved MRA of the calf), which served as the standard of reference. Scan times for each examination step and total examination times for each of the three techniques was determined. Image quality and degree of stenosis were rated by two readers on a 5-point Likert scale. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for relevant (>50%) stenosis were calculated.

RESULTS

Median total examination time was 27:02 min for QISS-MRA (IQR, 25:13-31:01 min), 28:37 min for FSE-MRA (IQR, 25:51-33:12 min), and 31:22 min for CE-MRA (IQR, 26:41-33:23 min). Acquisition time for QISS-MRA was significantly longer compared to FSE-MRA and CE-MRA (p ≤ 0.0001), while time for localizers, scouts and planning of the MRA sequence was significantly shorter for QISS-MRA compared to FSE-MRA and CE-MRA (p ≤ 0.0001). QISS-MRA had significantly better image quality compared to FSE-MRA with less segments classified as non-diagnostic (Reader 1: 3% vs. 35%; Reader 2: 3% vs. 50%, p ≤ 0.0001). Overall, QISS-MRA showed significantly better diagnostic performance than FSE-MRA (sensitivity, 85% vs. 54%; specificity, 90% vs. 47%, diagnostic accuracy, 89% vs. 48%; p ≤ 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Total examination time of QISS-MRA and FSE-MRA was comparable with a conventional CE-MRA protocol. QISS-MRA showed significantly higher diagnostic performance than FSE-MRA.