AJR Get Involved! Join ARRS Today
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hamer, O. W.
Right arrow Articles by Nitz, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hamer, O. W.
Right arrow Articles by Nitz, W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.04.1389
AJR 2005; 185:1282-1288
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

In Vivo Evaluation of Patency and In-Stent Stenoses After Implantation of Nitinol Stents in Iliac Arteries Using MR Angiography

Okka W. Hamer1, Thomas Finkenzeller1, Ingitha Borisch1, Christian Paetzel1, Niels Zorger1, Stefan Feuerbach1 and Wolfgang Nitz1

1 All authors: Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital of Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93042 Regensburg, Germany.

OBJECTIVE. Our study was a prospective in vivo study to evaluate whether MR angiography is suitable for assessing stent patency and grading in-stent stenoses and to examine whether the accuracy of MR angiography changes with time after stent implantation.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. In a prospective study, 34 iliac stenoses in 27 patients were treated by implantation of 35 nitinol stents. MR angiography was performed immediately after stent placement for 32 stents, and both digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and MR angiography were repeated at the 6-month follow-up for 23 stents. Three blinded observers assessed stent patency and the degree of in-stent stenoses on MR angiography and DSA (the standard of reference) images. The difference between the observers' grading of stenoses on DSA and on MR angiography was determined. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student's t test for paired samples.

RESULTS. Stent patency was assessed correctly for all stents and both sets of MR angiography images. Evaluation of DSA 1 images (obtained at end of implantation procedure) revealed that 96.9% of in-stent stenoses were less than 50%. On DSA 2 images (obtained at follow-up), 95.7% of in-stent stenoses were graded as less than 50%. The difference between grading of stenoses on DSA and MR angiography images was 15.0% ± 16.0% (minimum, 0.0%; maximum, 63.3%) for DSA 1 versus MR angiography 1 (statistically significant, p = 0.037) and 9.8% ± 13.5% (minimum, 0.0%; maximum, 63.3%) for MR angiography 2 versus DSA 2 (not statistically significant, p = 0.355).

CONCLUSION. Patency was correctly assessed for all stents on MR angiography. The quality of MR angiography regarding characterization of in-stent stenoses improved with time after stent placement. However, discrepancies of more than 60% between grading of lumen narrowing on DSA and MR angiography images occurred even at the 6-month follow-up. Thus, MR angiography is not yet a reliable technique for characterization of in-stent stenoses.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
O W Hamer, I Borisch, C Paetzel, W R Nitz, J Seitz, S Feuerbach, and N Zorger
In vitro evaluation of stent patency and in-stent stenoses in 10 metallic stents using MR angiography
Br. J. Radiol., August 1, 2006; 79(944): 636 - 643.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.