PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Mossa-Basha, M.
AU  - Yuan, C.
AU  - Wasserman, B.A.
AU  - Mikulis, D.J.
AU  - Hatsukami, T.S.
AU  - Balu, N.
AU  - Gupta, A.
AU  - Zhu, C.
AU  - Saba, L.
AU  - Li, D.
AU  - DeMarco, J.K.
AU  - Lehman, V.T.
AU  - Qiao, Y.
AU  - Jager, H.R.
AU  - Wintermark, M.
AU  - Brinjikji, W.
AU  - Hess, C.P.
AU  - Saloner, D.A.
TI  - Survey of the American Society of Neuroradiology Membership on the Use and Value of Extracranial Carotid Vessel Wall MRI
AID  - 10.3174/ajnr.A7720
DP  - 2022 Dec 01
TA  - American Journal of Neuroradiology
PG  - 1756--1761
VI  - 43
IP  - 12
4099  - http://www.ajnr.org/content/43/12/1756.short
4100  - http://www.ajnr.org/content/43/12/1756.full
SO  - Am. J. Neuroradiol.2022 Dec 01; 43
AB  - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Extracranial vessel wall MRI (EC-VWI) contributes to vasculopathy characterization. This survey study investigated EC-VWI adoption by American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR) members and indications and barriers to implementation.MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ASNR Vessel Wall Imaging Study Group survey on EC-VWI use, frequency, applications, MR imaging systems and field strength used, protocol development approaches, vendor engagement, reasons for not using EC-VWI, ordering provider interest, and impact on clinical care was distributed to the ASNR membership between April 2, 2019, to August 30, 2019.RESULTS: There were 532 responses; 79 were excluded due to minimal, incomplete response and 42 due to redundant institutional responses, leaving 411 responses. Twenty-six percent indicated that their institution performed EC-VWI, with 66.3% performing it ≤1–2 times per month, most frequently on 3T MR imaging, with most using combined 3D and 2D protocols. Protocols most commonly included pre- and postcontrast T1-weighted imaging, TOF-MRA, and contrast-enhanced MRA. Inflammatory vasculopathy (63.3%), plaque vulnerability assessments (61.1%), intraplaque hemorrhage (61.1%), and dissection-detection/characterization (51.1%) were the most frequent applications. For those not performing EC-VWI, the reasons were a lack of ordering provider interest (63.9%), lack of radiologist time/interest (47.5%) or technical support (41.4%) for protocol development, and limited interpretation experience (44.9%) and knowledge of clinical applications (43.7%). Reasons given by 46.9% were that no providers approached radiology with interest in EC-VWI. If barriers were overcome, 51.1% of those not performing EC-VWI indicated they would perform it, and 40.6% were unsure; 48.6% did not think that EC-VWI had impacted patient management at their institution.CONCLUSIONS: Only 26% of neuroradiology groups performed EC-VWI, most commonly due to limited clinician interest. Improved provider and radiologist education, protocols, processing techniques, technical support, and validation trials could increase adoption.EC-VWIextracranial vessel wall MRIIPinternet protocolASNRAmerican Society of Neuroradiology