Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Feb;35(2):449-55. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22839. Epub 2011 Dec 6.
To evaluate the use of a T2-weighted SPACE sequence (T2w-SPACE) to assess carotid stenosis via several methods and compare its performance with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (ceMRA).
Fifteen patients with carotid atherosclerosis underwent dark blood (DB)-MRI using a 3D turbo spin echo with variable flip angles sequence (T2w-SPACE) and ceMRA. Images were coregistered and evaluated by two observers. Comparisons were made for luminal diameter, luminal area, degree of luminal stenosis (NASCET: North American Symptomatic Endarterectomy Trial; ECST: European Carotid Surgery Trial, and area stenosis), and vessel wall area. Degree of NASCET stenosis was clinically classified as mild (<50%), moderate (50%-69%), or severe (>69%).
Excellent agreement was seen between ceMRA and T2w-SPACE and between observers for assessment of lumen diameter, lumen area, vessel wall area, and degree of NASCET stenosis (r > 0.80, P < 0.001). ECST stenosis was consistently higher than NASCET stenosis (48 ± 14% vs. 24 ± 22%, P < 0.001). Area stenosis (72 ± 2%) was significantly higher (P < 0.001) than both ESCT and NASCET stenosis.
DB-MRI of carotid arteries using T2w-SPACE is clinically feasible. It provides accurate measurements of lumen size and degree of stenosis in comparison with ceMRA and offers a more reproducible measure of ECST stenosis than ceMRA.
评估使用 T2 加权空间(T2w-SPACE)序列通过多种方法评估颈动脉狭窄,并将其与对比增强磁共振血管造影(ceMRA)进行比较。
15 例颈动脉粥样硬化患者行三维涡轮自旋回波可变翻转角序列(T2w-SPACE)和 ceMRA 黑血(DB)MRI。图像进行了配准,并由两名观察者进行评估。比较了管腔直径、管腔面积、管腔狭窄程度(NASCET:北美症状性颈动脉内膜切除术试验;ECST:欧洲颈动脉外科试验和面积狭窄)和血管壁面积。NASCET 狭窄程度临床分为轻度(<50%)、中度(50%-69%)或重度(>69%)。
ceMRA 和 T2w-SPACE 之间以及观察者之间在评估管腔直径、管腔面积、血管壁面积和 NASCET 狭窄程度方面具有极好的一致性(r > 0.80,P < 0.001)。ECST 狭窄程度始终高于 NASCET 狭窄程度(48 ± 14%比 24 ± 22%,P < 0.001)。面积狭窄(72 ± 2%)明显高于 ESCT 和 NASCET 狭窄程度(均 P < 0.001)。
使用 T2w-SPACE 的颈动脉 DB-MRI 在临床上是可行的。与 ceMRA 相比,它可以提供管腔大小和狭窄程度的准确测量值,并提供比 ceMRA 更具可重复性的 ECST 狭窄程度测量值。