造影剂增强减影磁共振成像对检测术中囊栓塞预防性主动脉腔内修复术后内漏的作用。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Acta radiologica Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1177/02841851241263987
Atsufumi Kamisako, Motoki Nakai, Toru Saguchi, Taro Tanaka, Yukinori Okada, Masanori Ishida, Kazuhiro Saito
{"title":"造影剂增强减影磁共振成像对检测术中囊栓塞预防性主动脉腔内修复术后内漏的作用。","authors":"Atsufumi Kamisako, Motoki Nakai, Toru Saguchi, Taro Tanaka, Yukinori Okada, Masanori Ishida, Kazuhiro Saito","doi":"10.1177/02841851241263987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Metallic and hyperdense artifacts and T1-shortening substances in the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac generated by embolic materials and lipiodol pose challenges in the identification of endoleaks on follow-up computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the usefulness of contrast-enhanced subtraction MRI (CES-MRI) for detecting endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) with intraoperative AAA sac embolization compared with CE-CT, this study was conducted.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>In this study, 28 consecutive patients who underwent EVAR with prophylactic AAA sac embolization were included. All patients underwent CES-MRI and CE-CT to detect endoleaks. The definitive diagnosis of endoleaks was a consensus reading of CE-CT and CES-MRI by two certified radiologists, in addition to angiography or reproducible radiological findings in the observational examination. Analysis was performed to evaluate which examination was better for detecting endoleaks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of CE-CT and CES-MRI according to observer 1 were 50%, 100%, and 0.813 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.625-1.00) and 100%, 95%, and 0.997 (95% CI = 0.984-1.00), respectively, and those according to observer 2 were 50%, 100%, and 0.750 (95% CI = 0.514-0.986) and 100%, 95%, and 0.969 (95% CI = 0.903-1.00), respectively. Intolerable artifacts were significantly observed on CE-CT. The severity of the artifacts did not depend on the stent graft on CT and MRI.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although no significant difference was observed, CES-MRI tended to have better accuracy for endoleak detection in EVAR with intraoperative AAA sac embolization than CE-CT.</p>","PeriodicalId":7143,"journal":{"name":"Acta radiologica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The usefulness of contrast-enhanced subtraction magnetic resonance imaging for detecting endoleaks after endovascular aortic repair with prophylactic intraoperative sac embolization.\",\"authors\":\"Atsufumi Kamisako, Motoki Nakai, Toru Saguchi, Taro Tanaka, Yukinori Okada, Masanori Ishida, Kazuhiro Saito\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02841851241263987\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Metallic and hyperdense artifacts and T1-shortening substances in the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac generated by embolic materials and lipiodol pose challenges in the identification of endoleaks on follow-up computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the usefulness of contrast-enhanced subtraction MRI (CES-MRI) for detecting endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) with intraoperative AAA sac embolization compared with CE-CT, this study was conducted.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>In this study, 28 consecutive patients who underwent EVAR with prophylactic AAA sac embolization were included. All patients underwent CES-MRI and CE-CT to detect endoleaks. The definitive diagnosis of endoleaks was a consensus reading of CE-CT and CES-MRI by two certified radiologists, in addition to angiography or reproducible radiological findings in the observational examination. Analysis was performed to evaluate which examination was better for detecting endoleaks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of CE-CT and CES-MRI according to observer 1 were 50%, 100%, and 0.813 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.625-1.00) and 100%, 95%, and 0.997 (95% CI = 0.984-1.00), respectively, and those according to observer 2 were 50%, 100%, and 0.750 (95% CI = 0.514-0.986) and 100%, 95%, and 0.969 (95% CI = 0.903-1.00), respectively. Intolerable artifacts were significantly observed on CE-CT. The severity of the artifacts did not depend on the stent graft on CT and MRI.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although no significant difference was observed, CES-MRI tended to have better accuracy for endoleak detection in EVAR with intraoperative AAA sac embolization than CE-CT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7143,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta radiologica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta radiologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02841851241263987\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta radiologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02841851241263987","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:栓塞材料和脂碘在腹主动脉瘤(AAA)囊内产生的金属和高密度伪影以及T1缩短物质给后续计算机断层扫描(CT)或磁共振成像(MRI)识别内漏带来了挑战。目的:与 CE-CT 相比,本研究旨在评估对比增强减影 MRI(CES-MRI)对术中 AAA 囊栓塞的血管内腹主动脉瘤修补术(EVAR)后内漏的检测作用:本研究连续纳入了 28 例接受 EVAR 并进行预防性 AAA 囊栓塞的患者。所有患者均接受了 CES-MRI 和 CE-CT 检查以检测内漏。除了血管造影或观察性检查中可重复的放射学发现外,内漏的明确诊断是由两名经认证的放射科医生对 CE-CT 和 CES-MRI 的一致判读。分析评估了哪种检查更适合检测内膜渗漏:观察者 1 的 CE-CT 和 CES-MRI 敏感性、特异性和曲线下面积分别为 50%、100% 和 0.813(95% 置信区间 [CI] = 0.625-1.00)和 100%、95% 和 0.997(95% CI = 0.984-1.00),观察者 2 的敏感性、特异性和曲线下面积分别为 50%、100% 和 0.750(95% CI = 0.514-0.986)和 100%、95% 和 0.969(95% CI = 0.903-1.00)。在 CE-CT 上明显观察到不可容忍的伪影。在 CT 和 MRI 上,伪影的严重程度与支架移植物无关:结论:虽然没有观察到明显差异,但 CES-MRI 在术中 AAA 囊栓塞的 EVAR 中检测内漏的准确性往往高于 CE-CT。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The usefulness of contrast-enhanced subtraction magnetic resonance imaging for detecting endoleaks after endovascular aortic repair with prophylactic intraoperative sac embolization.

Background: Metallic and hyperdense artifacts and T1-shortening substances in the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac generated by embolic materials and lipiodol pose challenges in the identification of endoleaks on follow-up computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Purpose: To evaluate the usefulness of contrast-enhanced subtraction MRI (CES-MRI) for detecting endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) with intraoperative AAA sac embolization compared with CE-CT, this study was conducted.

Material and methods: In this study, 28 consecutive patients who underwent EVAR with prophylactic AAA sac embolization were included. All patients underwent CES-MRI and CE-CT to detect endoleaks. The definitive diagnosis of endoleaks was a consensus reading of CE-CT and CES-MRI by two certified radiologists, in addition to angiography or reproducible radiological findings in the observational examination. Analysis was performed to evaluate which examination was better for detecting endoleaks.

Results: The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of CE-CT and CES-MRI according to observer 1 were 50%, 100%, and 0.813 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.625-1.00) and 100%, 95%, and 0.997 (95% CI = 0.984-1.00), respectively, and those according to observer 2 were 50%, 100%, and 0.750 (95% CI = 0.514-0.986) and 100%, 95%, and 0.969 (95% CI = 0.903-1.00), respectively. Intolerable artifacts were significantly observed on CE-CT. The severity of the artifacts did not depend on the stent graft on CT and MRI.

Conclusion: Although no significant difference was observed, CES-MRI tended to have better accuracy for endoleak detection in EVAR with intraoperative AAA sac embolization than CE-CT.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta radiologica
Acta radiologica 医学-核医学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
170
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Radiologica publishes articles on all aspects of radiology, from clinical radiology to experimental work. It is known for articles based on experimental work and contrast media research, giving priority to scientific original papers. The distinguished international editorial board also invite review articles, short communications and technical and instrumental notes.
期刊最新文献
A survey of bridging bone on chest radiography shows a greater than expected prevalence of marginal syndesmophytes. Can the second phase of contrast-enhanced MRA of the neck provide additional information in the acute stroke setting? Inter-reader agreement of LI-RADS treatment response algorithm among three readers with different seniorities for hepatocellular carcinoma after locoregional therapy. Visual assessment of cerebrospinal fluid flow dynamics using 3D T2-weighted SPACE sequence-based classification system. Castellvi classification of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae: comparison between conventional radiography, CT, and MRI.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1