You could be reading the full-text of this article now if you...

If you have access to this article through your institution,
you can view this article in

Possibilities and Limitations in Imaging the Intracranial Arteries in the Context of a Contrast-Enhanced Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Angiographic Screening Protocol at 1.5 Versus 3 Tesla

Buhk, Jan-Hendrik MD; Ries, Thorsten MD; Finck-Wedel, Anna-Katharina MD; Beil, Frank Ulrich MD; Adam, Gerhard MD; Weber, Christoph MD

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography:
doi: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181f124d9
Original Articles
Abstract

Objective: Evaluation of the diagnostic detectability of the intracranial vasculature on contrast-enhanced whole-body magnetic resonance angiographic (WBMRA) scans at 1.5 versus 3 T.

Methods: Twenty-seven patients with hereditary hyperlipidemia participated. Two experienced neuroradiologists scored the image quality regarding the intracranial arteries applying a 5-point scale. Stenoses and other findings were documented. Weighted κ-statistics were calculated to assess interobserver agreement.

Results: Interobserver agreement was very good. Image quality scoring resulted in the following mean values: 3.0 at 1.5 T versus 3.9 at 3 T (P < 0.001). Venous contrast overlay and insufficient anatomic coverage occurred in both groups. Three stenoses were found at both field strengths.

Conclusions: Assessment of the intracranial vasculature on WBMRA data is basically feasible; image quality at 3 T seems superior. Shortcomings appear because of venous contamination and insufficient volume coverage. Therefore, adding a dedicated intracranial MRA to a WBMRA protocol would substantially increase diagnostic certainty.

Author Information

From the Departments of *Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, †Neuroradiology, and ‡Internal Medicine, Medical Clinic III, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Received for publication May 6, 2010; accepted July 8, 2010.

Reprints: Jan-Hendrik Buhk, MD, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, D-20246 Hamburg, Germany (e-mail: jbuhk@uke.de).

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

The study was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (project number AD 125/4-1).

Copyright © 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.