Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig 1.
Variability of stenosis values between 2 observers for the different imaging and evaluation techniques assessed by scatterplots and ICC values showing excellent agreement between the observers.
- Fig 2.
Comparison of modalities by differences between stenosis values. Pairs of modalities that cross the zero-line are not considered significantly different. In cases of local signal intensity loss, the grade of stenosis was assigned as 90%. On average, stenosis values obtained with CE-MRA and MIP postprocessing were 7% higher than those with CTA. Stenosis values of TOF-MRA with MPR postprocessing were comparable with CTA.
- Fig 3.
Stenosis values for CTA, CE-MRA, and TOF-MRA evaluated with the MPR method are represented graphically in scatter plots (upper row) and Bland-Altman-plots (lower row). Confidence intervals of the difference in stenosis values are given as gray bands. Highest agreement is found for CTA and TOF-MRA. In cases of local signal loss, the grade of stenosis was assigned as 90%.
- Fig 4.
Stenosis of the left ICA. Local signal intensity loss at CE-MRA (A) with distal enhancement, but residual signal intensity is detectable with TOF-MRA (B: TOF-MIP) and CTA (C, “scout” MIP; D, transverse MPR at site of minimal lumen; E, transverse MPR at reference site beyond poststenotic dilation). Signal intensity is fading at the edge of the scan volume (B), leading to artificial lumen reduction on MIP images (B).
Tables
Mean difference in stenosis value and 95% confidence intervals of all symptomatic stenosis for each imaging modality (cases of local signal loss assigned as 90% stenosis)
Modality All Examinations (Signal Loss = 90%) Examinations Without Local Signal Loss Only Difference (%) 95% Simultaneous CI Difference (%) 95% Simultaneous CI CE-MIP vs CT 7.0 3.4 10.6 2.8 −0.8 6.4 TOF-MIP vs CT 2.8 −0.8 6.5 −0.8 −4.4 2.8 CE-MPR vs CT 4.0 0.4 7.6 −0.8 −4.4 2.7 TOF-MPR vs CT 0.6 −3.0 4.3 −3.9 −7.5 −0.4 TOF-MIP vs CE-MIP −4.2 −7.8 −0.6 −3.6 −7.2 0 CE-MPR vs CE-MIP −3.0 −6.6 0.6 −3.6 −7.2 −0.1 TOF-MPR vs TOF-MIP −2.2 −5.8 1.4 −3.1 −6.7 0.4 TOF-MPR vs CE-MPR −3.4 −7.0 0.3 −3.1 −6.7 0.5 Note:—CI indicates confidence interval; CE, contrast-enhanced; MIP, maximum intensity projection; TOF, time-of-flight; MPR, multiplanar reformation. When only studies without local signal loss are included, the differences between the modalities decrease.
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- CT Attenuation Analysis of Carotid Intraplaque Hemorrhage
- 2011 ASA/ACCF/AHA/AANN/AANS/ACR/ASNR/CNS/SAIP/SCAI/SIR/SNIS/SVM/SVS Guideline on the Management of Patients With Extracranial Carotid and Vertebral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Stroke Association, American Association of Neuroscience Nurses, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, American College of Radiology, American Society of Neuroradiology, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery, Society for Vascular Medicine, and Society for Vascular Surgery
- 2011 ASA/ACCF/AHA/AANN/AANS/ACR/ASNR/CNS/SAIP/SCAI/SIR/SNIS/SVM/SVS Guideline on the Management of Patients With Extracranial Carotid and Vertebral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Stroke Association, American Association of Neuroscience Nurses, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, American College of Radiology, American Society of Neuroradiology, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery, Society for Vascular Medicine, and Society for Vascular Surgery
- 2011 ASA/ACCF/AHA/AANN/AANS/ACR/ASNR/CNS/SAIP/SCAI/SIR/SNIS/SVM/SVS Guideline on the Management of Patients With Extracranial Carotid and Vertebral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Stroke Association, American Association of Neuroscience Nurses, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, American College of Radiology, American Society of Neuroradiology, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery, Society for Vascular Medicine, and Society for Vascular Surgery Developed in Collaboration With the American Academy of Neurology and Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
- Contrast-Enhanced MR Angiography Is Not More Accurate Than Unenhanced 2D Time-of-Flight MR Angiography for Determining >=70% Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis
- High-Resolution 3T MR Angiography of the Carotid Arteries: Comparison of Manual and Semiautomated Quantification of Stenosis