Stroke · 1992
Comparison of magnetic resonance angiography, conventional angiography, and duplex scanning.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Riles T S, Eidelman E M, Litt A W, Pinto R S, Oldford F, Schwartzenberg G W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of magnetic resonance angiography in assessing patients with cerebrovascular disease, we performed a study comparing the results of conventional cerebral angiography, duplex scanning, and magnetic resonance angiography.
METHODS: From 42 patients, a total of 25 carotid arteries were evaluated by all three techniques. The studies were independently read and sorted into five categories according to the degree of stenosis: 0-15%, normal; 16-49%, mild; 50-79%, moderate; 80-99%, severe; and totally occluded.
RESULTS: Magnetic resonance angiography correlated exactly with conventional angiography in 39 arteries (52%); duplex scanning correlated with conventional angiography in 49 cases (65%). Compared with conventional angiography, both magnetic resonance angiography and duplex scanning tended to overread the degree of stenosis. The most critical errors associated with magnetic resonance angiography were three readings of total occlusion in vessels found to be patent on conventional angiograms.
CONCLUSIONS: Although magnetic resonance angiography offers great hope of providing high-quality imaging of the carotid artery with no risk and at less cost, data from this study suggest that misreading the degree of stenosis, or misinterpreting a stenosis for an occlusion, could lead to errors in clinical decisions. Guidelines for use of magnetic resonance angiography in a clinical setting are offered.
METHODS: From 42 patients, a total of 25 carotid arteries were evaluated by all three techniques. The studies were independently read and sorted into five categories according to the degree of stenosis: 0-15%, normal; 16-49%, mild; 50-79%, moderate; 80-99%, severe; and totally occluded.
RESULTS: Magnetic resonance angiography correlated exactly with conventional angiography in 39 arteries (52%); duplex scanning correlated with conventional angiography in 49 cases (65%). Compared with conventional angiography, both magnetic resonance angiography and duplex scanning tended to overread the degree of stenosis. The most critical errors associated with magnetic resonance angiography were three readings of total occlusion in vessels found to be patent on conventional angiograms.
CONCLUSIONS: Although magnetic resonance angiography offers great hope of providing high-quality imaging of the carotid artery with no risk and at less cost, data from this study suggest that misreading the degree of stenosis, or misinterpreting a stenosis for an occlusion, could lead to errors in clinical decisions. Guidelines for use of magnetic resonance angiography in a clinical setting are offered.