Liang Keng-Wei, Chen Jhih-Wei, Huang Hsin-Hui, Su Chun-Hung, Tyan Yeu-Sheng, Tsao Teng-Fu
From the *Department of Medical Imaging, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital; †School of Medical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, Chung Shan Medical University; ‡Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital; and §School of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, R.O.C.
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2017 Jul/Aug;41(4):619-627. doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000574.
The aims of this study were to evaluate the performance of noncontrast magnetic resonance angiography (NC MRA) for detecting renal artery stenosis (RAS) as compared with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE MRA) and to evaluate the clinical feasibility, technical success rate, and performance of NC MRA for detecting RAS as compared with CE MRA.
Thirty-six subjects who underwent NC MRA and/or CE MRA were enrolled. Feasibility, technical success rate, and image quality scores were compared. Diagnostic ability was calculated using conventional angiography as a reference.
Noncontrast MRA had higher feasibility and technical success rates than CE MRA did (100% and 97.2% vs 83.3% and 90%, respectively). Noncontrast MRA yielded significantly better image quality in motion artifact (P = 0.016). The diagnostic ability for detecting RAS is without significant difference between NC MRA and CE MRA.
Although NC MRA and CE MRA demonstrated comparable ability in diagnosing RAS, NC MRA achieved better technical success rates, feasibility, and image quality in motion artifacts than CE MRA did.
本研究旨在评估与对比增强磁共振血管造影（CE MRA）相比，非对比磁共振血管造影（NC MRA）检测肾动脉狭窄（RAS）的性能，并评估NC MRA与CE MRA相比检测RAS的临床可行性、技术成功率和性能。
纳入36例行NC MRA和/或CE MRA的受试者。比较可行性、技术成功率和图像质量评分。以传统血管造影为参考计算诊断能力。
非对比MRA的可行性和技术成功率高于CE MRA（分别为100%和97.2%，对比83.3%和90%）。非对比MRA在运动伪影方面的图像质量明显更好（P = 0.016）。NC MRA和CE MRA在检测RAS的诊断能力上无显著差异。
虽然NC MRA和CE MRA在诊断RAS方面表现出相当的能力，但NC MRA在技术成功率、可行性以及运动伪影的图像质量方面比CE MRA更好。
