肾动脉流入反转恢复MR血管成像与CT、增强MR血管成像图像质量的比较  

Comparison of renal artery in-flow inversion recovery MR angiography versus CT angiography or contrast-enhanced MR angiography

作　　者：成兰[1] 余建明[1] 于群[1] 刘定西[1] 杨明[1] 刘小明[1] 富青[1] 

机构地区：[1]华中科技大学同济医学院附属协和医院放射科,武汉430022

出　　处：《中华放射学杂志》2015年第10期778-782,共5页Chinese Journal of Radiology

摘　　要：目的比较肾动脉流人反转恢复MR血管成像（IFIRMRA）、CTA和增强MR血管成像（CE．MRA）的图像质量，探讨肾动脉IFIRMRA的价值。方法前瞻性收集因病情需要行肾动脉CTA或CE．MRA检查的35例患者，其中19例行肾动脉CTA检查，16例行肾动脉CE．MRA检查，患者还均行肾动脉IFIRMRA检查。由2名高年资放射科医师单独阅片，分别对不同检查方法的图像行肾动脉图像质量评分、肾静脉伪影评分、肾动脉分支显示评分，并采用配对样本的Wilcoxon符号秩检验比较；测量肾动脉（副肾动脉）主干直径，并采用配对样本t检验比较；对2名医师间肾动脉图像质量评分、肾静脉伪影评分的一致性评价采用Kappa分析。结果IFIRMRA和CTA图像的肾动脉图像质量评分及肾静脉伪影评分差异均无统计学意义（P均〉0．05）。IFIRMRA和CE．MRA图像的肾动脉图像质量评分及肾静脉伪影评分差异均有统计学意义（P均〈0．05）。2名医师肾动脉图像质量评分和肾静脉伪影评分的一致性均较好，Kappa值为0．425—1．000。行CTA检查的患者19例中，共显示48条动脉（38条肾动脉、10条副。肾动脉），IFIRMRA均得以显示。IFIRMRA和CTA图像的肾动脉分支显示评分分别为（3．7±0．7）、（3．8±0．6）分，IFIRMRA和CTA图像上测得的肾动脉主干直径分别为（4．9±1.3）、（5．0±1．4）mm，差异均无统计学意义（P均〉0．05）。行CE．MRA检查的患者16例中，共显示38条动脉（32条肾动脉、6条副肾动脉），IFIRMRA均得以显示。IFIRMRA和CE-MRA图像的肾动脉分支显示评分分别为（3．4±0．8）、（2．5±0．9）分，差异有统计学意义（z=-4．040，P〈0．01）；IFIRMRA和CE．MRA图像上测得的肾动脉主干直径分别为（4．7±1.3）、（4．7±1．2）mm，差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论肾动脉IFIRMRA的图像质量与CTA相当，优于CE-MRA，可作为肾动脉成像�Objective To compare the image quality of renal artery in-flow inversion recovery MR angiography （IFIR MRA）, CTA and contrast-enhanced MR angiography （CE-MRA） and to assess the value of renal artery IFIR MRA. Methods Thirty five patients were prospectively included in this study.Renal artery CTA was performed in 19 patients and renal artery CE-MRA was performed in 16 patients. In addition to renal artery CTA or CE-MRA, all patients underwent renal artery IFIR MRA. Two radiologists separately graded renal artery image quality, renal venous artifact and the visualization of renal artery branches regarding these three different techniques. Wilcoxon signed rank test of paired samples was used to compare the grading results, t test of paired samples was applied to compare the results of renal artery （accessory renal artery） trunk diameter. The consistency evaluation of renal artery image quality and renal venous artifact grades between two radiologists employed Kappa analysis. Results There was no significant difference between IFIR MRA and CTA with renal artery image quality and renal venous artifact （P〉0.05）. There was significant difference between IFIR MRA and CE-MRA with renal artery image quality and renal venous artifact （P〈0.05）. The consistency evaluation results of renal artery image quality and renal venous artifact grades between two radiologists were both good. Kappa value were 0.425 to 1.000. CTA of 19 cases depicted 48 renal arteries （38 renal arteries, 10 accessory renal arteries）, IFIR MRA depicted them all. The grades of visualization of renal artery branches about IF1R MRA and CTA were （3.7±0.7） and （3.8±0.6） respectively, renal artery trunk diameter of IFIR MRA and CTA were （4.9 ± 1.3） and （5.0 ± 1.4） mm respectively, there was no significant difference between IFIR MRA and CTA （P〉0.05）.CE-MRA of 16 cases depicted 38 renal arteries （32 renal arteries, 6 accessory renal arteries）, IFIR MRA depicted them all. The grades of visualization of ren

关 键 词：肾动脉 磁共振血管造影术 体层摄影术 x线计算机 

分 类 号：R816.7[医药卫生—放射医学] R445.2[医药卫生—临床医学]