Premium
MRA is useful as a follow‐up technique after endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms with nitinol endoprostheses
Author(s) -
Ayuso Juan R.,
de Caralt Teresa M.,
Pages Mario,
Riambau Vicente,
Ayuso Carmen,
Sanchez Marcelo,
Real María I.,
Montaña Xavier
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.20170
Subject(s) - medicine , radiology , endovascular aneurysm repair , aneurysm , angiography , lumen (anatomy) , aortic repair , aortic aneurysm , nuclear medicine , abdominal aortic aneurysm , surgery
Purpose To evaluate whether MR angiography (MRA) is a useful tool for the follow‐up of aortic aneurysms treated with nitinol endoluminal grafts. Materials and Methods We examined 28 patients treated with nitinol endovascular stents to repair an aortic aneurysm with CT angiography (CTA) and MRA. Eleven patients (group 1) underwent an MRA after a positive CTA for endoleak was observed. Afterwards, 17 patients (group 2) were scheduled for both follow‐up examinations. The kind of endoleak that occurred and the maximum aortic diameter were compared. The sensitivity of CTA relative to MRA for detecting endoleaks in group 2 was calculated. Signal‐to‐noise ratios (SNRs) were measured in the aortoiliac lumen at the arterial phase in, above, and below the endoprostheses. Student's t‐test was used to compare aneurysm dimensions and SNR measurements. Results Three type III leaks were correctly assessed at both examinations; however, CTA was less sensitive (50%) than MRA in depicting type II or unclassified leaks. No differences in aneurismal size were observed between the two examinations or between arterial SNRs observed in or out of the devices. Conclusion MRA can provide all relevant information necessary for the follow‐up of patients treated with nitinol endoprostheses, and performs better than CTA in detecting endoleaks. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2004;20:803–810. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.