Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 2/2013

01-02-2013 | Vascular-Interventional

In vitro stent lumen visualisation of various common and newly developed femoral artery stents using MR angiography at 1.5 and 3 tesla

Authors: R. Syha, D. Ketelsen, M. Kaempf, S. Mangold, S. Sixt, T. Zeller, F. Springer, F. Schick, C. D. Claussen, K. Brechtel

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 2/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate stent lumen assessment of various commonly used and newly developed stents for the superficial femoral artery (SFA) using MR angiography (MRA) at 1.5 and 3 T.

Methods

Eleven nitinol stents and one cobalt-chromium stent were compared regarding stent lumen visualisation using a common three-dimensional MRA sequence. Maximum visible stent lumen width and contrast ratio were analysed in three representative slices for each stent type. A scoring system for lumen visualisation was applied.

Results

Nitinol stents showed significantly better performance than the cobalt chromium stent (P < 0.05) at 1.5 and 3 T. Maximum visible stent lumen ranged between 43.4 and 95.5 %, contrast ratio between 7.2 and 110.6 %. Regarding both field strengths, seven of the nitinol stents were classified as “suitable”. Three nitinol stents were “limited”, and one nitinol stent and the cobalt chromium stent were “not suitable”.

Conclusions

Intraluminal loss of signal and artefacts of most of the SFA stents do not markedly limit assessment of stent lumen by MRA at 1.5 and 3 T. MRA can thus be considered a valid technique for detection of relevant in-stent restenosis. Applied field strength does not strongly influence stent lumen assessment in general, but proper choice of field strength might be helpful.

Key Points

• Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) is now widely used instead of digital subtraction angiography
• MRA can be considered valid for detection of relevant femoral in-stent restenosis
• Applied field strength does not strongly influence lumen assessment of SFA stents
• But appropriate choice of field strength might be helpful for some stents
Literature
1.
Diehm C, Schuster A, Allenberg JR et al (2004) High prevalence of peripheral arterial disease and co-morbidity in 6880 primary care patients: cross-sectional study. Atherosclerosis 172:95–105PubMedCrossRef
2.
Fowkes FGR, Housley E, Cawood EHH, Macintyre CCA, Ruckley CV, Prescott RJ (1991) Edinburgh artery study: prevalence of asymptomatic and symptomatic peripheral arterial disease in the general population. Int J Epidemiol 20:384–392PubMedCrossRef
3.
Kröger K, Stang A, Kondratieva J et al (2006) Prevalence of peripheral arterial disease—results of the Heinz Nixdorf recall study. Eur J Epidemiol 21:279–285PubMedCrossRef
4.
Laird JR, Katzen BT, Scheinert D et al (2010) Nitinol stent implantation versus balloon angioplasty for lesions in the superficial femoral artery and proximal popliteal artery/clinical perspective. Circulation 3:267–276PubMed
5.
Schillinger M, Minar E (2009) Past, present and future of femoropopliteal stenting. J Endovasc Ther 16:147–152CrossRef
6.
Schlager O, Dick P, Sabeti S et al (2005) Long-segment SFA stenting—the dark sides: in-stent restenosis, clinical deterioration, and stent fractures. J Endovasc Ther 12:676–684PubMedCrossRef
7.
Tepe G, Zeller T, Albrecht T et al (2008) Local delivery of paclitaxel to inhibit restenosis during angioplasty of the leg. N Engl J Med 358:689–699PubMedCrossRef
8.
Krnic A, Vucic N, Sucic Z (2006) Duplex scanning compared with intra-arterial angiography in diagnosing peripheral arterial disease: three analytical approaches. Vasa 35:86–91PubMedCrossRef
9.
Reimer P, Landwehr P (1998) Non-invasive vascular imaging of peripheral vessels. Eur Radiol 8:858–872PubMedCrossRef
10.
Ubbink DT, Fidler M, Legemate DA (2001) Interobserver variability in aortoiliac and femoropopliteal duplex scanning. J Vasc Surg 33:540–545PubMedCrossRef
11.
Nordmeyer J, Gaudin R, Tann OR et al (2010) MRI May Be sufficient for noninvasive assessment of great vessel stents: an in vitro comparison of MRI, CT, and conventional angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:865–871PubMedCrossRef
12.
Plank C, Wolf F, Langenberger H et al (2011) Improved detection of in-stent restenosis by blood pool agent-enhanced, high-resolution, steady-state magnetic resonance angiography. Eur Radiol 21:2158–2165PubMedCrossRef
13.
Mohrs O, Petersen S, Heidt M et al (2011) High-resolution 3D non-contrast-enhanced, ECG-gated, multi-step MR angiography of the lower extremities: Comparison with contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Eur Radiol 21:434–442PubMedCrossRef
14.
Blum MB, Schmook M, Schernthaner R et al (2007) Quantification and detectability of in-stent stenosis with CT angiography and MR angiography in arterial stents in vitro. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1238–1242PubMedCrossRef
15.
Burg M, Bunck AC, Seifarth H et al (2011) MR angiography of peripheral arterial stents: in vitro evaluation of 22 different stent types. Radiol Res Pract 2011:478175
16.
Maintz D, Kugel H, Schellhammer F, Landwehr P (2001) In vitro evaluation of intravascular stent artifacts in three-dimensional MR angiography. Invest Radiol 36:218–224PubMedCrossRef
17.
Maintz D, Tombach B, Juergens K-U, Weigel S, Heindel W, Fischbach R (2002) Revealing in-stent stenoses of the iliac arteries: comparison of multidetector CT with MR angiography and digital radiographic angiography in a phantom model. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:1319–1322PubMed
18.
Adams GJ, Baltazar U, Karmonik C et al (2005) Comparison of 15 different stents in superficial femoral arteries by high resolution MRI ex vivo and in vivo. J Magn Reson Imaging 22:125–135PubMedCrossRef
19.
Kaempf M, Ketelsen D, Syha R et al (2012) CT angiography of various superficial femoral artery stents: an in vitro phantom study. Eur J Radiol 81:1584–1588PubMedCrossRef
20.
Maintz D, Burg M, Seifarth H et al (2009) Update on multidetector coronary CT angiography of coronary stents: in vitro evaluation of 29 different stent types with dual-source CT. Eur Radiol 19:42–49PubMedCrossRef
21.
Lenhart M, Völk M, Manke C et al (2000) Stent appearance at contrast-enhanced MR angiography: in vitro examination with 14 stents. Radiology 217:173–178PubMed
22.
Lettau M, Sauer A, Heiland S et al (2010) In vitro comparison of different carotid artery stents: a pixel-by-pixel analysis using CT angiography and contrast-enhanced MR angiography at 1.5 and 3 T. Neuroradiology 52:823–830PubMedCrossRef
23.
Wall A, Kugel H, Bachman R et al (2005) 3.0 T vs. 1.5 T MR angiography: in vitro comparison of intravascular stent artifacts. J Magn Reson Imaging 22:772–779PubMedCrossRef
24.
Straube T, Wolf S, Flesser A et al (2005) MRI of carotid stents: influence of stent properties and sequence parameters on visualization of the carotid artery lumen. Rofo 177:375–380PubMedCrossRef
25.
Tello R, Thomson K, Witte D, Becker G, Tress B (1998) Dynamic gadolinium DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance of intravascular stents. Invest Radiol 33:411–414PubMedCrossRef
26.
Schernthaner MB, Edelhauser G, Berzaczy D et al (2010) Perceptibility and quantification of in-stent stenosis with six peripheral arterial stent types in vitro: comparison of 16-MDCT angiography, 64-MDCT angiography, and MR angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1346–1351PubMedCrossRef
27.
Quick HH, Kuehl H, Kaiser G, Bosk S, Debatin JF, Ladd ME (2002) Inductively coupled stent antennas in MRI. Magn Reson Med 48:781–790PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
In vitro stent lumen visualisation of various common and newly developed femoral artery stents using MR angiography at 1.5 and 3 tesla
Authors
R. Syha
D. Ketelsen
M. Kaempf
S. Mangold
S. Sixt
T. Zeller
F. Springer
F. Schick
C. D. Claussen
K. Brechtel
Publication date
01-02-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2625-9

Other articles of this Issue 2/2013

European Radiology 2/2013 Go to the issue

Magnetic Resonance

Differential NMR spectroscopy reactions of anterior/posterior and right/left insular subdivisions due to acute dental pain

Contrast Media

Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast media: updated ESUR Contrast Medium Safety Committee guidelines

Musculoskeletal

Review of radiological scoring methods of osteoporotic vertebral fractures for clinical and research settings

Cardiac

Letter to the editor re: “Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis”—unfair study selection in meta-analysis

Neuro

Apparent diffusion coefficient obtained by magnetic resonance imaging as a prognostic marker in glioblastomas: correlation with MGMT promoter methylation status

Computed Tomography

Changes in measured size of atherosclerotic plaque calcifications in dual-energy CT of ex vivo carotid endarterectomy specimens: effect of monochromatic keV image reconstructions