Mean difference in stenosis values and 95% CI of all symptomatic stenoses for the different techniques
| Technique | All Examinations | Exclusion of 90% and 95% Stenoses* | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Difference (%) | 95% CI | Difference (%) | 95% CI | |
| CE-MIP vs CE-MPR | 2.9 | −0.5–6.2 | 2.4 | −1.1–5.8 |
| CE-VR vs CE-MPR | 7.2 | 3.9–10.6 | 7.1 | 3.6–10.5 |
| TOF-MIP vs TOF-MPR | 0.4 | −2.9–3.8 | −0.2 | −3.6–3.3 |
| TOF-VR vs TOF-MPR | 2.6 | −0.8–6.0 | 2.4 | −1.0–5.9 |
| CE-MPR vs TOF-MPR | −1.9 | −5.2–1.5 | −1.5 | −5.0–1.9 |
| CE-MIP vs TOF-MIP | 0.6 | −2.7–4.0 | 1.0 | −2.4–4.5 |
| CE-VR vs TOF-VR | 2.8 | −0.6–6.1 | 3.1 | −0.3–6.6 |
Note:—VR indicates volume-rendering; CE, contrast enhanced; MIP, maximum intensity projection; MPR, multiplanar reformation; TOF, time of flight.
* Cases of local signal loss were assigned as 90% stenosis; cases of near-occlusion, as 95% stenosis. Exclusion of these cases had no relevant influence on the results.