Abdominal aortic aneurysm MRI

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor-In-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2]; Hardik Patel, M.D. Ramyar Ghandriz MD [3]

Overview

MRI might be a better soft tissue visualizer than ultrasonography and CT, but its limitations limit its usage as a screening tool and as a diagnostic tool during emergencies like ruptured AAA. However its advantages makes it a good alternative in AAA patients with poor renal function and in elective preoperative evaluation of unruptured AAA^[1].

MRI

Advantages

MRI may be helpful in stable patients with a severe dye allergy, where CT scanning is contraindicated.
MRI provides imaging of the aorta comparable to that with CT scanning and ultrasonogram without subjecting the patient to dye load or ionizing radiation.
MRI also provides superior imaging of branch vessels compared with CT scan or ultrasonogram^[2].
MRI is a more precise preoperative evaluator and affords immediate post operative evaluation of surgical repair of AAA^[3].

Limitations

Lack of widespread availability
Need for a stable patient
More sensitive to motion than CT, thus requiring the patient to remain motionless for a longer period of time
Incompatible with monitoring equipment
High cost
Less valuable in assessing suprarenal extension of aneurysm
Less accurate than thin-slice CT^[2]

References

↑ Thurnher, SA.; Dorffner, R.; Thurnher, MM.; Winkelbauer, FW.; Kretschmer, G.; Polterauer, P.; Lammer, J. (1997). “Evaluation of abdominal aortic aneurysm for stent-graft placement: comparison of gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography versus helical CT angiography and digital subtraction angiography”. Radiology. 205 (2): 341–52. PMID 9356613. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 Litmanovich, D.; Bankier, AA.; Cantin, L.; Raptopoulos, V.; Boiselle, PM. (2009). “CT and MRI in diseases of the aorta”. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 193 (4): 928–40. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.2166. PMID 19770313. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
↑ Cejna, M.; Loewe, C.; Schoder, M.; Dirisamer, A.; Hölzenbein, T.; Kretschmer, G.; Lammer, J.; Thurnher, S. (2002). “MR angiography vs CT angiography in the follow-up of nitinol stent grafts in endoluminally treated aortic aneurysms”. Eur Radiol. 12 (10): 2443–50. doi:10.1007/s00330-002-1429-8. PMID 12271383. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Template:WH Template:WS CME Category::Cardiology

[Thurnher-1997-1] Thurnher, SA.; Dorffner, R.; Thurnher, MM.; Winkelbauer, FW.; Kretschmer, G.; Polterauer, P.; Lammer, J. (1997). “Evaluation of abdominal aortic aneurysm for stent-graft placement: comparison of gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography versus helical CT angiography and digital subtraction angiography”. Radiology. 205 (2): 341–52. PMID 9356613. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[Litmanovich-2009-2] 2.0 ^2.1 Litmanovich, D.; Bankier, AA.; Cantin, L.; Raptopoulos, V.; Boiselle, PM. (2009). “CT and MRI in diseases of the aorta”. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 193 (4): 928–40. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.2166. PMID 19770313. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[Cejna-2002-3] Cejna, M.; Loewe, C.; Schoder, M.; Dirisamer, A.; Hölzenbein, T.; Kretschmer, G.; Lammer, J.; Thurnher, S. (2002). “MR angiography vs CT angiography in the follow-up of nitinol stent grafts in endoluminally treated aortic aneurysms”. Eur Radiol. 12 (10): 2443–50. doi:10.1007/s00330-002-1429-8. PMID 12271383. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]