Carotid artery stents: In vitro comparison of different stent designs and sizes using CT angiography and contrast-enhanced MR angiography at 1.5T and 3T

American Journal of Neuroradiology

Volumn 30, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 1993-1997

  Lettau, Michael ^a   Sauer, A ^a   Heiland, S ^a   Rohde, S ^a   Bendszus, M ^a   Hahnel S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALLOY; COBALT; CONTRAST MEDIUM; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE; IOMEPROL; NITINOL; STAINLESS STEEL;

ARTICLE; CAROTID ARTERY DISEASE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; IMAGING SYSTEM; IN VITRO STUDY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MATERIALS; MEASUREMENT; PHANTOM; RELIABILITY; STENT;

ALLOYS; CAROTID STENOSIS; CEREBRAL ANGIOGRAPHY; COBALT; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STAINLESS STEEL; STENTS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 71449096104     PISSN: 01956108     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A1743     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Eckstein HH, Ringleb P, Allenberg JR, et al. Results of the Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) study to treat symptomatic stenoses at 2 years: a multinational, prospective, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol 2008;7:893-902
2. Bendszus M, Koltzenburg M, Burger R, et al. Silent embolism in diagnostic cerebral angiography and neurointerventional procedures: a prospective study. Lancet 1999;354:1594-1597 (Pubitemid 29515951)
3. Hähnel S, Trossbach M, Braun C, et al. Small-vessel stents for intracranial angioplasty: in vitro comparison of different stent designs and sizes by using CT angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:1512-1516 (Pubitemid 37151710)
4. Lenhart M, Volk M, Manke C, et al. Stent appearance at contrast-enhanced MR angiography: in vitro examination with 14 stents. Radiology 2000;217:173-178 (Pubitemid 33097598)
5. Wall A, Kugel H, Bachman R, et al. 3.0 T vs. 1.5 TMR angiography: in vitro comparison of intravascular stent artifacts. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;22:772-779 (Pubitemid 41741246)
6. Strotzer M, Lenhart M, Butz B, et al. Appearance of vascular stents in computed tomographic angiography: in vitro examination of 14 different stent types. Invest Radiol 2001;36:652-658 (Pubitemid 33021094)
7. Heuschmid M, Wiesinger B, Tepe G, et al. Evaluation of various image reconstruction parameters in lower extremity stents using multidetector-row CT angiography: initial findings. Eur Radiol 2007;17:265-271 (Pubitemid 46063053)
8. Maintz D, Seifarth H, Raupach R, et al. 64-slice multidetector coronary CT angiography: in vitro evaluation of 68 different stents. Eur Radiol 2006;16:818-826 (Pubitemid 43380241)
9. Bladin CF, Alexandrova NA, Murphy J, et al. The clinical value of methods to measure carotid stenosis. Int Angiol 1996;15:295-299 (Pubitemid 27168607)
10. Schenck JF. The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds. Med Phys 1996;23:815-850
11. Bakker CJ, Bhagwandien R, Moerland MA, et al. Simulation of susceptibility artifacts in 2D and 3D Fourier transform spin-echo and gradient-echo magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1994;12:767-774 (Pubitemid 24226670)
12. Bartels LW, Bakker CJ, Viergever MA. Improved lumen visualization in metallic vascular implants by reducing RF artifacts. Magn Reson Med 2002;47:171-180
13. Wang Y, Truong TN, Yen C, et al. Quantitative evaluation of susceptibility and shielding effects of nitinol, platinum, cobalt-alloy, and stainless steel stents. Magn Reson Med 2003;49:972-976 (Pubitemid 36523486)
14. Klemm T, Duda S, Machann J, et al. MR imaging in the presence of vascular stents: a systematic assessment of artifacts for various stent orientations, sequence types, and field strengths. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:606-615 (Pubitemid 30752037)
15. Graf H, Klemm T, Lauer UA, et al. Systematics of imaging artifacts in MRT caused by metallic vascular implants (stents) [in German]. Röfo 2003;175:1711-1719 (Pubitemid 38019855)
16. Krämer SC, Wall A, Maintz D, et al. 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance angiography of endovascular aortic stent grafts: phantom measurements in comparison with 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2004;39:413-417 (Pubitemid 38802816)
17. Hähnel S, Nguyen-Trong TH, Rohde S, et al. 3.0 Tesla contrast-enhanced MR angiography of carotid artery stents: in vitro measurements as compared with 1.5 Tesla. J Neuroradiol 2006;33:75-80 (Pubitemid 43748146)
18. Buecker A, Spuentrup E, Ruebben A, et al. Artifact-free in-stent lumen visualization by standard magnetic resonance angiography using a new metallic magnetic resonance imaging stent. Circulation 2002;105:1772-1775 (Pubitemid 34408884)
19. Bartels LW, Smits HF, Bakker CJ, et al. MR imaging of vascular stents: effects of susceptibility, flow, and radiofrequency eddy currents. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2001;12:365-371
20. Holton A, Walsh E, Anayiotos A, et al. Comparative MRI compatibility of 316 L stainless steel alloy and nickel-titanium alloy stents. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2002;4:423-430 (Pubitemid 36083955)
21. Meyer JM, Buecker A, Spuentrup E, et al. Improved in-stent magnetic resonance angiography with high flip angle excitation. Invest Radiol 2001;36:677-681 (Pubitemid 33021096)
22. Straube T, Wolf S, Flesser A, et al. MRI of carotid stents: influence of stent properties and sequence parameters on visualization of the carotid artery lumen [in German]. Röfo 2005;177:375-380 (Pubitemid 40363285)
23. Maintz D, Tombach B, Juergens KU, et al. 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 2002;179:1319-1322 (Pubitemid 35204394)
24. Amano Y, Ishihara M, Hayashi H, et al. Metallic artifacts of coronary and iliac arteries stents in MR angiography and contrast-enhanced CT. Clin Imaging 1999;23:85-89 (Pubitemid 29290577)
25. Prince MR. Gadolinium-enhanced MR aortography. Radiology 1994;191:155-164