title: Magnetic resonance angiography in infrapopliteal arterial disease: prospective comparison of 1.5 and 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To prospectively determine the accuracy of 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3 T magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) versus digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in the depiction of infrageniculate arteries in patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease.
  
  
  METHODS
  A prospective 1.5 T, 3 T MRA, and DSA comparison was used to evaluate 360 vessel segments in 10 patients (15 limbs) with chronic symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. Selective DSA was performed within 30 days before both MRAs. The accuracy of 1.5 T and 3 T MRA was compared with DSA as the standard of reference by consensus agreement of 2 experienced readers. Signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) and signal-difference-to-noise ratios (SDNRs) were quantified.
  
  
  RESULTS
  No significant difference in overall image quality, sufficiency for diagnosis, depiction of arterial anatomy, motion artifacts, and venous overlap was found comparing 1.5 T with 3 T MRA (P > 0.05 by Wilcoxon signed rank and as by Cohen k test). Overall sensitivity of 1.5 and 3 T MRA for detection of significant arterial stenosis was 79% and 82%, and specificity was 87% and 87% for both modalities, respectively. Interobserver agreement was excellent k > 0.8, P < 0.05) for 1.5 T as well as for 3 T MRA. SNR and SDNR were significantly increased using the 3 T system (average increase: 36.5%, P < 0.032 by t test, and 38.5%, P < 0.037 respectively).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Despite marked improvement of SDNR, 3 T MRA does not yet provide a significantly higher accuracy in diagnostic imaging of atherosclerotic lesions below the knee joint as compared with 1.5 T MRA.
authors.affiliation: Division of Angiology, Swiss Cardiovascular Center, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Nicolas
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Diehm
authors.forename: Ralph
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Kickuth
authors.forename: Iris
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Baumgartner
authors.forename: Sudesh K
authors.initials: SK
authors.lastname: Srivastav
authors.forename: Silvia
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Gretener
authors.forename: Marc J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Husmann
authors.forename: Yves
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Jaccard
authors.forename: Do Dai
authors.initials: do D
authors.lastname: Do
authors.forename: Juergen
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Triller
authors.forename: Harald M
authors.initials: HM
authors.lastname: Bonel
mesh_terms: D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D015901:Angiography, Digital Subtraction; D001157:Arterial Occlusive Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D016477:Artifacts; D003287:Contrast Media; D005260:Female; D005682:Gadolinium; D006571:Heterocyclic Compounds; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; D007866:Leg / Q000098:blood supply*; D018810:Magnetic Resonance Angiography; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D009942:Organometallic Compounds; D016491:Peripheral Vascular Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D011150:Popliteal Artery; D011446:Prospective Studies; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric
chemical_list: D003287:Contrast Media; D006571:Heterocyclic Compounds; D009942:Organometallic Compounds; C062402:gadoteridol; D005682:Gadolinium