We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Aortic and lower-extremity arterial disease: evaluation with MR angiography versus conventional angiography.
Radiology 1998 March
PURPOSE: To compare magnetic resonance (MR) angiography with conventional angiography in evaluation of the aorta and lower-extremity arterial system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients were evaluated with femoral conventional and MR angiography. Iliac artery segments were evaluated with two-dimensional and contrast material-enhanced three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography. Infrainguinal regions were evaluated with two-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography with a dedicated lower-extremity coil. Arteries depicted on femoral images were separately interpreted as 20 anatomic segments. Disease classification included normal to moderate disease (0%-50% stenosis), severe stenosis (> 50% stenosis), diffuse disease (more than one severe stenosis), and occlusion. Four readers interpreted the images and rendered treatment recommendations.
RESULTS: Substantial to almost perfect interobserver agreement (kappa, 0.66-1.00) was achieved in most cases for MR angiogram interpretation. The three most experienced readers achieved substantial to almost perfect intraobserver agreement (kappa, 0.61-1.00) between conventional and MR angiogram interpretation in most cases. Among three readers, moderate agreement (kappa, 0.43-0.53) was found between treatment recommendations based on conventional versus MR angiographic findings; for the most experienced reader, this agreement was almost perfect (kappa, 0.90).
CONCLUSION: For experienced readers, there was substantial to almost perfect agreement between conventional and MR angiographic image interpretations of the aorta and lower-extremity arterial system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients were evaluated with femoral conventional and MR angiography. Iliac artery segments were evaluated with two-dimensional and contrast material-enhanced three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography. Infrainguinal regions were evaluated with two-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography with a dedicated lower-extremity coil. Arteries depicted on femoral images were separately interpreted as 20 anatomic segments. Disease classification included normal to moderate disease (0%-50% stenosis), severe stenosis (> 50% stenosis), diffuse disease (more than one severe stenosis), and occlusion. Four readers interpreted the images and rendered treatment recommendations.
RESULTS: Substantial to almost perfect interobserver agreement (kappa, 0.66-1.00) was achieved in most cases for MR angiogram interpretation. The three most experienced readers achieved substantial to almost perfect intraobserver agreement (kappa, 0.61-1.00) between conventional and MR angiogram interpretation in most cases. Among three readers, moderate agreement (kappa, 0.43-0.53) was found between treatment recommendations based on conventional versus MR angiographic findings; for the most experienced reader, this agreement was almost perfect (kappa, 0.90).
CONCLUSION: For experienced readers, there was substantial to almost perfect agreement between conventional and MR angiographic image interpretations of the aorta and lower-extremity arterial system.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app