Subtraction MR Venography Acquired from Time-Resolved Contrast-Enhanced MR Angiography: Comparison with Phase-Contrast MR Venography and Single-Phase Contrast-Enhanced MR Venography.
10.3348/kjr.2015.16.6.1353
- Author:
Jinhee JANG
1
;
Bum Soo KIM
;
Jinkyeong SUNG
;
Bom Yi KIM
;
Hyun Seok CHOI
;
So Lyung JUNG
;
Kook Jin AHN
Author Information
1. Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Korea. bkim.neurorad@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- Keywords:
Time-resolved MR venography;
Subtraction;
Phase-contrast MR venography;
Contrast-enhanced MR venography
- MeSH:
Adult;
Aged;
Cerebral Veins/radiography;
Cranial Sinuses/radiography;
Female;
Humans;
Magnetic Resonance Angiography/instrumentation/*methods;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Signal-To-Noise Ratio
- From:Korean Journal of Radiology
2015;16(6):1353-1363
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the image characteristics of subtraction magnetic resonance venography (SMRV) from time-resolved contrast-enhanced MR angiography (TRMRA) compared with phase-contrast MR venography (PCMRV) and single-phase contrast-enhanced MR venography (CEMRV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients who underwent brain MR venography (MRV) using standard protocols (PCMRV, CEMRV, and TRMRA) were included. SMRV was made by subtracting the arterial phase data from the venous phase data in TRMRA. Co-registration and subtraction of the two volume data was done using commercially available software. Image quality and the degree of arterial contamination of the three MRVs were compared. In the three MRVs, 19 pre-defined venous structures (14 dural sinuses and 5 cerebral veins) were evaluated. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the three MRVs were also compared. RESULTS: Single-phase contrast-enhanced MR venography showed better image quality (median score 4 in both reviewers) than did the other two MRVs (p < 0.001), whereas SMRV (median score 3 in both reviewers) and PCMRV (median score 3 in both reviewers) had similar image quality (p ≥ 0.951). SMRV (median score 0 in both reviewers) suppressed arterial signal better than did the other MRVs (median score 1 in CEMRV, median score 2 in PCMRV, both reviewers) (p < 0.001). The dural sinus score of SMRV (median and interquartile range [IQR] 48, 43-50 for reviewer 1, 47, 43-49 for reviewer 2) was significantly higher than for PCMRV (median and IQR 31, 25-34 for reviewer 1, 30, 23-32 for reviewer 2) (p < 0.01) and did not differ from that of CEMRV (median and IQR 50, 47-52 for reviewer 1, 49, 45-51 for reviewer 2) (p = 0.146 in reviewer 1 and 0.123 in reviewer 2). The SNR and CNR of SMRV (median and IQR 104.5, 83.1-121.2 and 104.1, 74.9-120.5, respectively) were between those of CEMRV (median and IQR 150.3, 111-182.6 and 148.4, 108-178.2) and PCMRV (median and IQR 59.4, 49.2-74.9 and 53.6, 43.8-69.2). CONCLUSION: Subtraction magnetic resonance venography is a promising MRV method, with acceptable image quality and good arterial suppression.
