This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Imaging


Angiography for Diagnosing Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease – A Technical, Clinical and Cost Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography and Unenhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Techniques with a Focus on Fresh Blood Imaging


Carsten Schwenke,1 Monica Boos,2 Rainer Hentrich,3 Michael Blankenburg2 and Martin Rohrer2 1. Schwenke Consulting: Strategies and Solutions in Statistics (SCO:SSiS); 2. Bayer Schering Pharma AG; 3. Radiological Centre, Rottweil


Abstract


This study compares the clinical and technical utility of non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (nce-MRA) and contrast- enhanced MRA (ce-MRA) in a mini-review of patients with suspected peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) in whom both MRA approaches were indicated. It also looks at the costs of angiography for diagnosing peripheral arterial occlusive disease using either ce-MRA or nce-MRA in comparison with the example of fresh blood imaging (FBI). The costs for MRA were taken from a previous cost study and those for nce-MRA/FBI from published data and appropriate calculations. The average total investigation costs for ce-MRA were found to be €205, including €59 for consumables, mainly originating from the contrast agent costs (according to German list prices for 2009). On the other hand, for nce-MRA, average total costs ranged from €190 to €239, depending on the acquisition time (12–32 minutes), and a larger number of additional diagnostic investigations were found. Irrespective of costs, several clinical and technical benefits such as image quality, higher robustness and the absence of limitations with complex vessel courses favoured ce-MRA. The consequences of using ce-MRA were fewer technical failures and, therefore, a higher throughput of patients indicated for contrast agent use in the radiology department; this led to more procedures per day and, therefore, more efficient use of diagnostic imaging resources.


Keywords


Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), costs, angiography, peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD), non-contrast-enhanced MRA (nce-MRA), fresh blood imaging (FBI)


Disclosure: This study was funded by unrestricted grants from Bayer Schering Pharma AG. Carsten Schwenke and Rainer Hentrich are consultants to Bayer Schering Pharma AG. Monica Boos, Michael Blankenburg and Martin Rohrer are employees of Bayer Schering Pharma AG. Acknowledgements: This study was funded by Bayer Schering Pharma AG. We thank Karsten Bergmann, Bayer Schering Pharma AG, for his support. Received: 27 April 2010 Accepted: 1 June 2010 Citation: European Cardiology, 2010;6(2):54–60 Correspondence: Carsten Schwenke, SCO:SSiS, Zeltinger Str 58g, 13465 Berlin, Germany. E: carsten.schwenke@scossis.de


Since its introduction in 1993,1


contrast-enhanced magnetic


resonance angiography (ce-MRA) has been considered the technique of choice for angiographic examination of most regions of the body. This is because of several technical and clinical advantages in comparison with non-contrast-enhanced MRA (nce-MRA) imaging. In this article, we focus on patients with suspected peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) who were indicated for both MRA approaches; therefore, the clinical, technical and cost evaluation is restricted to this patient group. Specific nce techniques known as time-of-flight (TOF) methods have been investigated for peripheral MRA, despite their general and well-known limitations in clinical routine. These limitations are related to two main concerns. First, additional acquisition time is needed to obtain adequate images, thus leading to a reduced patient throughput, and second, more artefacts occur. Compared with ce-MRA, TOF MRA is more time-consuming and hence often less appropriate for imaging body regions with larger fields of view (FoV). Among other reasons, time consumption is extended by the necessity of saturation pulses orientating the imaging slice perpendicular to the blood flow. As a result, TOF MRA is particularly sensitive to patient motion. Additionally, signal losses are encountered when flows are complex or turbulent, e.g. in stenotic


54


areas, leading to overestimation of the degree and length of stenoses. Furthermore, saturation effects and ghosting artefacts due to vessel pulsatility may be disadvantageous.2–4


These limitations in


terms of motion sensitivity and long acquisition times for larger FoV are less critical for intracranial MRA. In addition, compared with other body regions, a short time window between arterial and venous phase in ce-MRA is obtained, making ce-MRA correspondingly more demanding. Consequently, nce-MRA can be routinely used for many intracranial indications; however, the situation is different for peripheral MRA for diagnosing PAOD.


Recently, technical progress has been achieved in terms of more sophisticated nce-MRA sequences that may reduce artefacts and thus allow the imaging of peripheral vessels with acceptable resolution. These technical aspects, as well as the recently observed possible link between occurrence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) and the use of gadolinium-based MR contrast agents, have motivated equipment manufacturers to develop more advanced nce techniques. For example, novel


nce-MRA techniques based on T2 effects using ultrafast spin-echo sequences (fresh blood imaging [FBI], nce-MRA/FBI) have been


© TOUCH BRIEFINGS 2010


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100
Produced with Yudu - www.yudu.com