Issue Alert Help & FAQ Search Current Issue
ENTH Navbar



[Full-text Article] [PDF Version] [Create Reference]
[PubMed Citation] [Related Articles in PubMed]

Abstract


doi: 10.1583/03-1130MR.1
Journal of Endovascular Therapy: Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 627–634.

Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography of 8 Aortic Stent-Graft Models

Michael Gawenda, MD1; Axel Gossmann, MD2; Karsten Krüger, MD2; Markus Zaehringer, MD2; Moritz Hahn, MD3; Gernot Wassmer, MD3; and Jan Brunkwall, MD, PhD1

1Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Cologne, Germany

2Department of Radiology, University of Cologne, Germany

3Institute of Medical Statistics, University of Cologne, Germany



Purpose: To report the systematic comparison of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) for evaluating 8 different aortic stent-graft models.

Methods: MR angiography (MRA) was performed using a 1.5-T whole body system within 2 days of a CT examination (4 detector row scanner) on 8 patients with one of these stent-graft models: AneuRx, Endofit, PowerLink, Excluder, LifePath, Talent, Vanguard, or Zenith. Using a 4-point scale (maximum score 112 points), 4 independent readers (1 vascular surgeon and 3 radiologists) rated the impact of stent-related artifacts on the diagnostic quality of each imaging method for 28 parameters: length, diameter, collateral aortic side branches, stent-graft prostheses, and contrast. Each examiner also scored his personal diagnostic confidence with each stent-graft model.

Results: The scores for diagnostic confidence in the CT imaging were 4 points for each stent-graft, with the exception of the LifePath (3 points). The diagnostic confidence in the MR images was mainly poor, with a median score of only 1; however, 3 stent-grafts (AneuRx, Excluder, and Vanguard) received 3 points. The total scores for comparative assessment were significantly different (p<0.05) between CT imaging (111.5) and MR (58.5). CT studies of all stent-grafts received >101 points, while only 3 devices acquired >80 points (AneuRx, Excluder, and Vanguard). Bland-Altman analysis showed that the reliability of the 4 readers was higher using the CT method. The total assessment scores of the stent-graft systems were related only on the different imaging methods (p<0.0001) and not to the different readers (p=0.983).

Conclusions: CT and MRI are fast, reliable means of providing all relevant information for stent-graft surveillance. Of 8 different stent-graft models, only 3 could be adequately assessed by MRA. Therefore, the potential advantages of the MR technique (e.g., use of minimally nephrotoxic contrast media, lack of ionizing radiation) are available only to a small proportion of patients.

Keywords: stent-graft, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, surveillance, artifacts



© Copyright by International Society of Endovascular Specialists 2004