Carotid bifurcation CT angiography: assessment of interactive volume rendering.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of CT angiography (CTA) for the assessment of carotid bifurcation stenosis, using interactive volume rendering (VR), maximum intensity projection (MIP), and 2D transverse CT technique (t-CT). METHOD: Nineteen consecutive patients were prospectively studied with CTA and selective digital subtraction angiography (DSA). There were 13 men and 6 women from 51 to 84 years old (mean 70 years). Results of DSA were compared with those of interactive VR, MIP, and conventional t-CT results, using North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria for stenosis grading. RESULTS: There were a total of 38 carotid bifurcations studied, with 9 mild, 10 moderate, and 15 severe stenoses and 4 occlusions. Overall agreement with DSA for VR was achieved in 76%. Eighty percent of the severe stenoses were correctly predicted by VR. The overall agreement between t-CT and DSA was 89%. MIP images, when analyzed independently, showed an overall agreement with angiography of only 71%. VR was not significantly different from MIP (p = 0.60). The difference between VR and t-CT had borderline significance (p = 0.09). MIP had significantly poorer agreement with angiography than t-CT (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: CTA has a high degree of accuracy for the assessment of carotid artery disease compared with catheter angiography. Interactive VR increases the accuracy of diagnosing carotid stenosis and decreases the number of unsatisfactory studies as compared with MIP. Further advances in computation speeds and improvements in software may dramatically alter the future use of VR for the communication of results to clinicians; however, careful analysis of transverse sections is essential to accurate CT interpretation.

MRI of the foot and ankle: diagnostic performance and patient acceptance of a dedicated low field MR scanner.

The objective of this study was to compare image quality and patient acceptance of a dedicated .2-T MR system and a 1.0-T whole body system. Forty-one consecutive patients referred for MRI of the foot or ankle were prospectively examined with a dedicated .2-T low field system and a 1.0-T whole body system. Images were evaluated qualitatively by two observers and quantitatively using signal-difference-to-noise ratios. The patients were interviewed with respect to positioning, examination time, noise, claustrophobia, confidence in the diagnosis, and willingness to repeat the examination, using a questionnaire. The qualitative score was significantly higher for the 1.0-T system (2.6 vs 2.2 for reader 1 [P = .008] and 2.6 vs 1.7 for reader 2 [P < .0001]), respectively). The signal-difference-to-noise ratios were also superior for the 1.0-T MR system (2.96 vs .88, P < .0001). However, 96% of the lesions visualized at 1.0 T were also detected with the low field system. Patient acceptance was significantly better for the 1.0-T MR scanner (48.6 vs 43.9, P = .007). Image quality of the dedicated low field system was inferior to the 1.0-T system using objective parameters, and patients did not prefer the low field system. Although only 4% of lesions were missed in this series, the low field MR system can only be recommended when funding is limited and the available space is limited.