• J Magn Reson Imaging · Nov 2018

    Diagnostic accuracy of a clinical carotid plaque MR protocol using a neurovascular coil compared to a surface coil protocol.

    • Waleed Brinjikji, J Kevin DeMarco, Robert Shih, Giuseppe Lanzino, Alejandro A Rabinstein, Christopher A Hilditch, Patrick J Nicholson, and John Huston.
    • Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
    • J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Nov 1; 48 (5): 1264-1272.

    BackgroundCarotid plaque imaging with MRI is becoming more commonplace, but practical challenges exist in performing plaque imaging with surface coils.PurposeTo compare the diagnostic performance of a carotid plaque MRI protocol using a standard neurovascular coil (Neurovascular Coil Protocol) to a higher-resolution carotid plaque MRI using carotid surface coils (Surface Coil Protocol) in characterizing carotid plaque.Study TypeProspective study comparing two MR techniques in plaque characterization.PopulationThirty-eight consecutive carotid artery disease patients.Field Strength/SequencePatients underwent 3T MRI using 1) a Neurovascular Coil Protocol including the following sequences: 3D-FSE T1 pre/postcontrast and precontrast 3D IR-FSPGR, and 2) a Surface Coil Protocol using standard multicontrast MRI sequences.AssessmentPlaque characteristics analyzed by two independent neuroradiologists included intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH), lipid-rich necrotic-core (LRNC), and thin/ruptured fibrous cap (TRFC).Statistical TestsDiagnostic performance of the Neurovascular Coil Protocol was compared to the Surface Coil Protocol reference standard using receiver-operating curves.ResultsFor IPH, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of the Neurovascular Coil Protocol were 91.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 78.8-97.5%), 87.0% (95% CI = 66.4-97.2%), and 0.92, respectively. For LRNC without IPH sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 73.3% (95% CI = 44.9-92.2%), 85.7% (95% CI = 67.3-96.0%), and 0.84, respectively. For TRFC, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 35.3% (95% CI = 14.2-61.7%), 97.6% (95% CI = 87.4-99.9%), and 0.66 respectively. Interobserver agreement for IPH, LRNC, and TRFC using the Neurovascular Coil Protocol were k = 0.87 (95% CI = 0.75-0.99), k = 0.54 (95% CI = 0.29-0.80), and k = 0.41 (95% CI = 0.08-0.74), respectively.Data ConclusionOur Neurovascular Coil Protocol has high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in identifying IPH and LRNC but is limited in assessment of TRFC.Level Of Evidence1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1264-1272.© 2018 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…