Advanced

AJNR - American Journal of Neuroradiology

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hathout, G. M Articles by El-Saden, S. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hathout, G. M Articles by El-Saden, S. M.

Accuracy of Contrast-Enhanced MR Angiography in Predicting Angiographic Stenosis of the Internal Carotid Artery: Linear Regression Analysis

Gasser M Hathout^a,b, Michael J. Duh^b and Suzie M. El-Saden^a,b

^a Departments of Radiology, West Los Angeles Veterans Administration Hospital, Los Angeles, CA
^b University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   FIG 1. Scatter plot and regression line for digital subtraction angiographic measurement of stenosis versus contrast-enhanced MR angiographic measurement of stenosis. r = 0.967. The slope is very nearly 1, and the intercept is nearly 0, showing excellent linearity. DSA, digital subtraction angiography; Gd-MRA, contrast-enhanced MR angiography.

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   FIG 2. Comparison of digital subtraction angiographic measurement of stenosis versus contrast-enhanced MR angiographic measurement of stenosis shows regression line with 95% mean confidence intervals, which reach a minimum of ±2.8%, showing excellent correlation between digital subtraction angiography and contrast-enhanced MR angiography in the mean. DSA, digital subtraction angiography; Gd-MRA, contrast-enhanced MR angiography.

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   FIG 3. Comparison of digital subtraction angiographic measurement of stenosis versus contrast-enhanced MR angiographic measurement of stenosis shows regression line with 95% individual confidence intervals, which reach a minimum of ±13.6%. These intervals are significantly wider than the mean confidence intervals shown in Figure 2. DSA, digital subtraction angiography; Gd-MRA, contrast-enhanced MR angiography.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   FIG 4. Comparison of digital subtraction angiographic measurement of stenosis versus contrast-enhanced MR angiographic measurement of stenosis shows regression line with both 95% mean confidence intervals and 95% individual confidence intervals overlaid on the same graph to depict the difference in relative width. DSA, digital subtraction angiography; Gd-MRA, contrast-enhanced MR angiography.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   FIG 5. Comparison of digital subtraction angiographic measurement of stenosis versus ultrasound PSV shows regression line with 95% individual confidence intervals, which reach a minimum of ±27.3%. The fit is significantly less (r = 0.86) and the confidence intervals significantly wider than with contrast-enhanced MR angiography (Gd-MRA). DSA, digital subtraction angiography.