These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of Quiescent-Interval Single-Shot Magnetic Resonance Angiography in Diabetic Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia Undergoing Digital Subtraction Angiography: Comparison With Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography With Calf Compression at 3.0 Tesla.
    Author: Wei LM, Zhu YQ, Zhang PL, Lu HT, Zhao JG.
    Journal: J Endovasc Ther; 2019 Feb; 26(1):44-53. PubMed ID: 30580695.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance of quiescent-interval single-shot magnetic resonance angiography (QISS-MRA) at 3 tesla in diabetic patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) vs contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) using digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the standard of reference. METHOD: Thirty-seven consecutive diabetic patients (mean age 71.8±7.2 years; 30 men) with CLI (Fontaine stage III-IV) underwent QISS-MRA and CE-MRA with calf compression; DSA was the standard. Image quality (5-point Likert-type scale) and stenosis severity (5-point grading) for QISS-MRA and CE-MRA were evaluated by 2 blinded readers in 1147 and 654 vessel segments, respectively. Per-segment and per-region (pelvis, thigh, calf) sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated. RESULTS: Image quality of QISS-MRA was lower compared with CE-MRA in the pelvic region (p<0.001 in both readers) and thigh region (p=0.033 in reader 1 and p=0.018 in reader 2), whereas in the calf region, the image quality of QISS-MRA was better than CE-MRA (p=0.009 in reader 1 and p=0.001 in reader 2). In segment-based analyses, there was no difference between QISS-MRA and CE-MRA in sensitivity [89.5% vs 90.3% in reader 1 (p=0.774) and 87.6% vs 90.6% in reader 2 (p=0.266)] or specificity [94.2% vs 92.9% in reader 1 (p=0.513) and 92.9% vs 92.9% in reader 2 (p>0.999)]. In region-based analyses, QISS-MRA and CE-MRA yielded similar sensitivity and specificity in all areas but the pelvic region for reader 2 (specificity 95.5% vs 84.8%, p=0.041). CONCLUSION: QISS-MRA performed very well in diabetic patients with CLI and was a good alternative for patients with contraindications to CE-MRA.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]