Radiology · 1998
Aortic and lower-extremity arterial disease: evaluation with MR angiography versus conventional angiography.
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.
Quinn S F, Sheley R C, Semonsen K G, Leonardo V J, Kojima K, Szumowski J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare magnetic resonance (MR) angiography with conventional angiography in evaluation of the aorta and lower-extremity arterial system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients were evaluated with femoral conventional and MR angiography. Iliac artery segments were evaluated with two-dimensional and contrast material-enhanced three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography. Infrainguinal regions were evaluated with two-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography with a dedicated lower-extremity coil. Arteries depicted on femoral images were separately interpreted as 20 anatomic segments. Disease classification included normal to moderate disease (0%-50% stenosis), severe stenosis (> 50% stenosis), diffuse disease (more than one severe stenosis), and occlusion. Four readers interpreted the images and rendered treatment recommendations.
RESULTS: Substantial to almost perfect interobserver agreement (kappa, 0.66-1.00) was achieved in most cases for MR angiogram interpretation. The three most experienced readers achieved substantial to almost perfect intraobserver agreement (kappa, 0.61-1.00) between conventional and MR angiogram interpretation in most cases. Among three readers, moderate agreement (kappa, 0.43-0.53) was found between treatment recommendations based on conventional versus MR angiographic findings; for the most experienced reader, this agreement was almost perfect (kappa, 0.90).
CONCLUSION: For experienced readers, there was substantial to almost perfect agreement between conventional and MR angiographic image interpretations of the aorta and lower-extremity arterial system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients were evaluated with femoral conventional and MR angiography. Iliac artery segments were evaluated with two-dimensional and contrast material-enhanced three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography. Infrainguinal regions were evaluated with two-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography with a dedicated lower-extremity coil. Arteries depicted on femoral images were separately interpreted as 20 anatomic segments. Disease classification included normal to moderate disease (0%-50% stenosis), severe stenosis (> 50% stenosis), diffuse disease (more than one severe stenosis), and occlusion. Four readers interpreted the images and rendered treatment recommendations.
RESULTS: Substantial to almost perfect interobserver agreement (kappa, 0.66-1.00) was achieved in most cases for MR angiogram interpretation. The three most experienced readers achieved substantial to almost perfect intraobserver agreement (kappa, 0.61-1.00) between conventional and MR angiogram interpretation in most cases. Among three readers, moderate agreement (kappa, 0.43-0.53) was found between treatment recommendations based on conventional versus MR angiographic findings; for the most experienced reader, this agreement was almost perfect (kappa, 0.90).
CONCLUSION: For experienced readers, there was substantial to almost perfect agreement between conventional and MR angiographic image interpretations of the aorta and lower-extremity arterial system.