> Detailanzeige

Valverde, Israel; Parish, Victoria; Hussain, Tarique; Rosenthal, Eric; Beerbaum, Philipp; Krasemann, Thomas

Planning of catheter interventions for pulmonary artery stenosis: Improved measurement agreement with magnetic resonance angiography using identical angulations

Literatur-
verwaltung

Zur
Merkliste

Lösche von
Merkliste

Per Whatsapp teilen

Schließen

Merkliste



Sie können Bookmarks mittels Listen verwalten, loggen Sie sich dafür bitte in Ihr SLUB Benutzerkonto ein.
  • Medientyp: E-Artikel
  • Titel: Planning of catheter interventions for pulmonary artery stenosis: Improved measurement agreement with magnetic resonance angiography using identical angulations
  • Beteiligte: Valverde, Israel; Parish, Victoria; Hussain, Tarique; Rosenthal, Eric; Beerbaum, Philipp; Krasemann, Thomas
  • Erschienen: Wiley, 2011
  • Erschienen in: Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 77 (2011) 3, Seite 400-408
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • DOI: 10.1002/ccd.22695
  • ISSN: 1522-1946; 1522-726X
  • Entstehung:
  • Anmerkungen:
  • Beschreibung: AbstractObjectives: To evaluate the current disagreement between the gold standard X‐ray angiography (XRA) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) for the measurement of peripheral pulmonary artery stenosis (PPAS). Background: MRA may help planning of catheter interventions for PPAS. However, there are sources of disagreement between XRA and MRA as measures are performed differently. We hypothesized that agreement may improve if identical angulation views are used. Methods: In this retrospective study, 17 patients were included. Four independent observers analyzed the pictures in three technique modalities: (1) XRA, (2) cross‐sectional‐MRA: reformatted to obtain the perpendicular cut‐off view of the vessel, and (3) angulated‐MRA: reformatted using the same angulations used in XRA. We measured: (a) minimal diameter at stenosis, (b) vessel diameter 1 cm proximal, and (c) 1 cm distal to the stenosis. Results: While in elliptical vessels cross‐sectional‐MRA provided both the larger and smaller diameter, XRA and angulated‐MRA typically provided only the larger diameter due to projections. We found poor agreement between the smaller diameter in cross‐sectional‐MRA and XRA. XRA underestimate the diameter at the three locations (<15–22%). However, there was a good agreement between the larger cross‐sectional‐MRA diameter and XRA. This further improved if MRA images were reformatted with the identical angulations used in XRA (angulated‐MRA). Conclusions: Conventional cross‐sectional‐MRA measurements of PPAS only moderately agree with XRA. However, using identical angulations in MRA reduces the bias. Hence, MRA is a valuable tool for planning angulations and measurements of PPAS prior to catheter interventions. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.