title: Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography of 8 aortic stent-graft models.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  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 > or =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.
authors.affiliation: Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Cologne, Germany. Michael.gawenda@medizin.uni-koeln.de
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Gawenda
authors.forename: Axel
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Gossmann
authors.forename: Karsten
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Krüger
authors.forename: Markus
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Zaehringer
authors.forename: Moritz
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Hahn
authors.forename: Gernot
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Wassmer
authors.forename: Jan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Brunkwall
mesh_terms: D000704:Analysis of Variance; D017544:Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000601:surgery; D016477:Artifacts; D001807:Blood Vessel Prosthesis; D019917:Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D018810:Magnetic Resonance Angiography / Q000379:methods*; D011336:Probability; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D012307:Risk Factors; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D015607:Stents; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods*