3-D magnetic resonance angiography versus conventional angiography in peripheral arterial disease: pilot study

Angiography is usually performed as the preoperative road map for those requiring revascularization for lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The alternative investigations are ultrasound, 3-D magnetic resonance angiography (3-D MRA) and computed tomography angiography. This pilot study aimed to assess whether 3-D MRA could replace the gold standard angiography in preoperative planning.

Eight patients considered for aortoiliac or infrainguinal arterial bypass surgery were recruited. All underwent both imaging modalities within 7 days. A vascular surgeon and a radiologist each reported on the images from both the 3-D MRA and the angiography, with blinding to patient details and each others reports. Comparisons were made between the reports for the angiographic and the 3-D MRA images, and between the reports of the vascular surgeon and the radiologist.

Compared to the gold standard angiogram, 3-D MRA had a sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 94% in detecting occlusion, and a sensitivity of 72% and specificity of 90% in differentiating high grade (>50%) versus low grade (<50%) stenoses. There was an overall concordance of 78% between the two investigations with a range of 62% in the peroneal artery to 94% in the aorta. 3-D MRA showed flow in 23% of cases where conventional angiography showed no flow.

In the present pilot study, 3-D MRA had reasonable concordance with the gold standard angiography, depending on the level of the lesion. At times it showed vessel flow where occlusion was shown on conventional angiogram. 3-D MRA in peripheral vascular disease is challenging the gold standard, but is inconsistent at present.