Need for background suppression in contrast-enhanced peripheral magnetic resonance angiography

✍ Scribed by Tim Leiner; Thomas T. de Weert; Robbert J. Nijenhuis; G. Boudewijn C. Vasbinder; Alphons G.H. Kessels; Kai Yiu J.A.M. Ho; Jos M.A. van Engelshoven

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2001
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 418 KB
• Volume: 14
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 1053-1807
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.10012

✦ Synopsis

Abstract

To determine if background suppression is beneficial for peripheral magnetic resonance angiography (pMRA), nonsubtracted, subtracted, and fat‐saturated contrast‐enhanced (CE) pMRA were compared in 10 patients with peripheral arterial disease. Signal‐to‐noise ratios (SNRs) and contrast‐to‐noise ratios (CNRs), as well as venous enhancement and subjective interpretability, were determined in a station‐by‐station fashion for each technique. In three patients X‐ray angiography was available as a standard of reference. SNRs and CNRs were significantly higher for fat‐saturated vs. the other two techniques (P = 0.005). Subjective interpretability was best for subtracted data sets in the lower‐leg station. In the iliac station, fat‐saturated data sets were considered to have significantly lower interpretability than subtracted data sets. Venous enhancement occurred significantly more often in the lower‐leg station with the fat‐saturated technique. The value of subtraction depends on the hardware one has available and is a useful tool if dedicated surface coils are used. Background suppression by means of magnitude subtraction leads to the best lower‐leg image interpretability. Care must be taken to avoid venous enhancement in the lower‐leg station when using fat saturation. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2001;14:724–733. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.