Comparison of renal artery in-flow inversion recovery MR angiography versus CT angiography or contrast-enhanced MR angiography
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005-1201.2015.10.013
- VernacularTitle:肾动脉流入反转恢复MR血管成像与CT、增强MR血管成像图像质量的比较
- Author:
Lan CHENG
;
Jianming YU
;
Qun YU
;
Dingxi LIU
;
Ming YANG
;
Xiaoming LIU
;
Qing FU
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Renal artery;
Magnetic resonance angiography;
Tomography,X-ray computed
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiology
2015;49(10):778-782
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the image quality of renal artery in-flow inversion recovery MR angiography (IFIR MRA), CTA and contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) and to assess the value of renal artery IFIR MRA. Methods Thirty five patients were prospectively included in this study.Renal artery CTA was performed in 19 patients and renal artery CE-MRA was performed in 16 patients. In addition to renal artery CTA or CE-MRA, all patients underwent renal artery IFIR MRA. Two radiologists separately graded renal artery image quality, renal venous artifact and the visualization of renal artery branches regarding these three different techniques. Wilcoxon signed rank test of paired samples was used to compare the grading results, t test of paired samples was applied to compare the results of renal artery (accessory renal artery) trunk diameter. The consistency evaluation of renal artery image quality and renal venous artifact grades between two radiologists employed Kappa analysis. Results There was no significant difference between IFIR MRA and CTA with renal artery image quality and renal venous artifact (P>0.05). There was significant difference between IFIR MRA and CE-MRA with renal artery image quality and renal venous artifact (P<0.05). The consistency evaluation results of renal artery image quality and renal venous artifact grades between two radiologists were both good. Kappa value were 0.425 to 1.000. CTA of 19 cases depicted 48 renal arteries (38 renal arteries, 10 accessory renal arteries), IFIR MRA depicted them all. The grades of visualization of renal artery branches about IFIR MRA and CTA were (3.7 ± 0.7) and (3.8 ± 0.6) respectively, renal artery trunk diameter of IFIR MRA and CTA were (4.9 ± 1.3) and (5.0 ± 1.4) mm respectively, there was no significant difference between IFIR MRA and CTA (P>0.05).CE-MRA of 16 cases depicted 38 renal arteries (32 renal arteries, 6 accessory renal arteries), IFIR MRA depicted them all. The grades of visualization of renal artery branches about IFIR MRA and CE-MRA were (3.4±0.8) and (2.5±0.9) respectively, and there was significant difference between IFIR MRA and CE-MRA (Z=-4.040, P<0.01). Renal artery trunk diameter of IFIR MRA and CE-MRA were (4.7±1.3) and (4.7±1.2) mm respectively, there was no significant difference between IFIR MRA and CE-MRA (P>0.05). Conclusions The image quality of renal artery IFIR MRA was equal to CTA and superior to CE-MRA. It could be considered as an alternative technique for renal artery angiography.
