• J Magn Reson Imaging · Mar 2017

    Comparative Study

    Comparison study between multicontrast atherosclerosis characterization (MATCH) and conventional multicontrast MRI of carotid plaque with histology validation.

    • Yuanyuan Dai, Peng Lv, Jiang Lin, Rongkui Luo, Hao Liu, Aihua Ji, Hui Liu, and Caixia Fu.
    • Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, and Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, China.
    • J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Mar 1; 45 (3): 764-770.

    PurposeTo compare Multicontrast ATherosclerosis Characterization (MATCH) with conventional multicontrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the characterization and quantification of carotid plaque components.Materials And MethodsFifty-three consecutive patients underwent carotid plaque 3.0T MRI including conventional multicontrast sequences and MATCH, with 13 of them having carotid endarterectomy for histology validation. The detection of major plaque components including lipid-rich necrotic core (LRNC), loose matrix (LM), intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH), and calcification (CA) and measurement of lumen area, outer wall area, normalized wall index (NWI), and plaque components areas were compared between the two protocols.ResultsPlaque analysis and comparison were done on 298 matched cross-sectional MRI. MATCH detected significantly more calcifications than conventional consequences (P < 0.01). The difference in detection of IPH (P = 0.07) and LRNC (P = 0.10) approached significance. There was no significant difference in demonstration of LM (P =0.52). A larger area of IPH and CA was measured on MATCH (P < 0.01). The difference nearly reached significance between the two protocols in measuring lumen area (P = 0.09) and outer wall area (P = 0.08). No significant difference was found when measuring the mean area of LRNC (P = 0.15) and LM (P = 0.14) and NWI (P = 0.38). By using receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis, the accuracy of MATCH and conventional protocols did not differ significantly in the detection of IPH (P = 0.15), LRNC (P = 0.61), LM (P = 0.48), and CA (P = 0.11) when histology served as a reference.ConclusionMATCH was comparable if not superior to conventional protocol in identification and quantification of major carotid plaque components.Level Of Evidence1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:764-770.© 2016 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…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.