Need for background suppression in contrast-enhanced peripheral magnetic resonance angiography

Abstract

To determine if background suppression is beneficial for peripheral magnetic resonance angiography (pMRA), nonsubtracted, subtracted, and fat-saturated contrast-enhanced (CE) pMRA were compared in 10 patients with peripheral arterial disease. Signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs), as well as venous enhancement and subjective interpretability, were determined in a station-by-station fashion for each technique. In three patients X-ray angiography was available as a standard of reference. SNRs and CNRs were significantly higher for fat-saturated vs. the other two techniques (P = 0.005). Subjective interpretability was best for subtracted data sets in the lower-leg station. In the iliac station, fat-saturated data sets were considered to have significantly lower interpretability than subtracted data sets. Venous enhancement occurred significantly more often in the lower-leg station with the fat-saturated technique. The value of subtraction depends on the hardware one has available and is a useful tool if dedicated surface coils are used. Background suppression by means of magnitude subtraction leads to the best lower-leg image interpretability. Care must be taken to avoid venous enhancement in the lower-leg station when using fat saturation.