Carotid Artery Stents: In Vitro Comparison of Different Stent Designs and Sizes Using CT Angiography and Contrast-Enhanced MR Angiography at 1.5T and 3T

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Eckstein HH,
   2. Ringleb P,
   3. Allenberg JR,
   4. et al

   . Results of the Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) study to treat symptomatic stenoses at 2 years: a multinational, prospective, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol 2008;7:893–902

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Bendszus M,
   2. Koltzenburg M,
   3. Burger R,
   4. et al

   . Silent embolism in diagnostic cerebral angiography and neurointerventional procedures: a prospective study. Lancet 1999;354:1594–97

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Hähnel S,
   2. Trossbach M,
   3. Braun C,
   4. et al

   . Small-vessel stents for intracranial angioplasty: in vitro comparison of different stent designs and sizes by using CT angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:1512–16

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Lenhart M,
   2. Volk M,
   3. Manke C,
   4. et al

   . Stent appearance at contrast-enhanced MR angiography: in vitro examination with 14 stents. Radiology 2000;217:173–78

   PubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Wall A,
   2. Kugel H,
   3. Bachman R,
   4. et al

   . 3.0 T vs. 1.5 T MR angiography: in vitro comparison of intravascular stent artifacts. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;22:772–79

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Strotzer M,
   2. Lenhart M,
   3. Butz B,
   4. et al

   . Appearance of vascular stents in computed tomographic angiography: in vitro examination of 14 different stent types. Invest Radiol 2001;36:652–58

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Heuschmid M,
   2. Wiesinger B,
   3. Tepe G,
   4. et al

   . Evaluation of various image reconstruction parameters in lower extremity stents using multidetector-row CT angiography: initial findings. Eur Radiol 2007;17:265–71

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Maintz D,
   2. Seifarth H,
   3. Raupach R,
   4. et al

   . 64-slice multidetector coronary CT angiography: in vitro evaluation of 68 different stents. Eur Radiol 2006;16:818–26

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   1. Bladin CF,
   2. Alexandrova NA,
   3. Murphy J,
   4. et al

   . The clinical value of methods to measure carotid stenosis. Int Angiol 1996;15:295–99

   PubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Schenck JF

    . The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds. Med Phys 1996;23:815–50

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Bakker CJ,
    2. Bhagwandien R,
    3. Moerland MA,
    4. et al

    . Simulation of susceptibility artifacts in 2D and 3D Fourier transform spin-echo and gradient-echo magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1994;12:767–74

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Bartels LW,
    2. Bakker CJ,
    3. Viergever MA

    . Improved lumen visualization in metallic vascular implants by reducing RF artifacts. Magn Reson Med 2002;47:171–80

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. Wang Y,
    2. Truong TN,
    3. Yen C,
    4. et al

    . Quantitative evaluation of susceptibility and shielding effects of nitinol, platinum, cobalt-alloy, and stainless steel stents. Magn Reson Med 2003;49:972–76

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Klemm T,
    2. Duda S,
    3. Machann J,
    4. et al

    . MR imaging in the presence of vascular stents: a systematic assessment of artifacts for various stent orientations, sequence types, and field strengths. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:606–15

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Graf H,
    2. Klemm T,
    3. Lauer UA,
    4. et al

    . Systematics of imaging artifacts in MRT caused by metallic vascular implants (stents) [in German]. Röfo 2003;175:1711–19

    PubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Krämer SC,
    2. Wall A,
    3. Maintz D,
    4. et al

    . 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance angiography of endovascular aortic stent grafts: phantom measurements in comparison with 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2004;39:413–17

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Hähnel S,
    2. Nguyen-Trong TH,
    3. Rohde S,
    4. et al

    . 3.0 Tesla contrast-enhanced MR angiography of carotid artery stents: in vitro measurements as compared with 1.5 Tesla. J Neuroradiol 2006;33:75–80

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Buecker A,
    2. Spuentrup E,
    3. Ruebben A,
    4. et al

    . Artifact-free in-stent lumen visualization by standard magnetic resonance angiography using a new metallic magnetic resonance imaging stent. Circulation 2002;105:1772–75

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    1. Bartels LW,
    2. Smits HF,
    3. Bakker CJ,
    4. et al

    . MR imaging of vascular stents: effects of susceptibility, flow, and radiofrequency eddy currents. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2001;12:365–71

    PubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Holton A,
    2. Walsh E,
    3. Anayiotos A,
    4. et al

    . Comparative MRI compatibility of 316 L stainless steel alloy and nickel-titanium alloy stents. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2002;4:423–30

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    1. Meyer JM,
    2. Buecker A,
    3. Spuentrup E,
    4. et al

    . Improved in-stent magnetic resonance angiography with high flip angle excitation. Invest Radiol 2001;36:677–81

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Straube T,
    2. Wolf S,
    3. Flesser A,
    4. et al

    . MRI of carotid stents: influence of stent properties and sequence parameters on visualization of the carotid artery lumen [in German]. Röfo 2005;177:375–80

    PubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Maintz D,
    2. Tombach B,
    3. Juergens KU,
    4. et al

    . Revealing in-stent stenoses of the iliac arteries: comparison of multidetector CT with MR angiography and digital radiographic angiography in a Phantom model. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1319–22

    PubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Amano Y,
    2. Ishihara M,
    3. Hayashi H,
    4. et al

    . Metallic artifacts of coronary and iliac arteries stents in MR angiography and contrast-enhanced CT. Clin Imaging 1999;23:85–89

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Prince MR

    . Gadolinium-enhanced MR aortography. Radiology 1994;191:155–64

    PubMedWeb of Science