La Radiologia medica · 2001
[Non-invasive assessment of epiaortic vessels. Comparison of magnetic resonance angiography with gadolinium, spiral computerized tomography angiography, and digital angiography].
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное 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.
Bozzao A, Floris R, Pocek M, Fasoli F, Garaci F G, Simonetti G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare gadolinium-enhanced MRA (Gd-MRA), Computed Tomography angiography (CTA) and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in the evaluation of carotid stenosis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty patients with US-proven internal carotid artery stenosis over 50%, underwent Gd-MRA, CTA and DSA. Gd-MRA was acquired using the keyhole technique.
RESULTS: The overall agreement was 90% for Gd-MRA and 93% for CTA. Gd-MRA and CTA overestimated 5 and 4 cases of mild stenosis and 1 case each of moderate stenosis, respectively. Gd-MRA better delineated ulcerated plaques, tandem lesions and pseudo-occlusions.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Because of the high speed acquisition breath-hold is no longer necessary for Gd-MRA and more delayed phases were analysed when necessary. The main limitation of Gd-MRA was represented by insufficient volume coverage that allowed the visualisation of supraaortic vessels from the arch only in 57% of the cases. Calcified plaques were very well detected by CTA and not by Gd-MRA. In our experience Gd-MRA represents the second step non invasive tool in patients with US-proven carotid stenosis. This leads to avoid conventional angiography in most cases.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty patients with US-proven internal carotid artery stenosis over 50%, underwent Gd-MRA, CTA and DSA. Gd-MRA was acquired using the keyhole technique.
RESULTS: The overall agreement was 90% for Gd-MRA and 93% for CTA. Gd-MRA and CTA overestimated 5 and 4 cases of mild stenosis and 1 case each of moderate stenosis, respectively. Gd-MRA better delineated ulcerated plaques, tandem lesions and pseudo-occlusions.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Because of the high speed acquisition breath-hold is no longer necessary for Gd-MRA and more delayed phases were analysed when necessary. The main limitation of Gd-MRA was represented by insufficient volume coverage that allowed the visualisation of supraaortic vessels from the arch only in 57% of the cases. Calcified plaques were very well detected by CTA and not by Gd-MRA. In our experience Gd-MRA represents the second step non invasive tool in patients with US-proven carotid stenosis. This leads to avoid conventional angiography in most cases.