A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

The Performance of Noncontrast Magnetic Resonance Angiography in Detecting Renal Artery Stenosis as Compared With Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography Using Conventional Angiography as a Reference. | LitMetric

The Performance of Noncontrast Magnetic Resonance Angiography in Detecting Renal Artery Stenosis as Compared With Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography Using Conventional Angiography as a Reference.

J Comput Assist Tomogr

From the *Department of Medical Imaging, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital; †School of Medical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, Chung Shan Medical University; ‡Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital; and §School of Medicine, Chung

Published: August 2017


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objective: The aims of this study were to evaluate the performance of noncontrast magnetic resonance angiography (NC MRA) for detecting renal artery stenosis (RAS) as compared with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE MRA) and to evaluate the clinical feasibility, technical success rate, and performance of NC MRA for detecting RAS as compared with CE MRA.

Methods: Thirty-six subjects who underwent NC MRA and/or CE MRA were enrolled. Feasibility, technical success rate, and image quality scores were compared. Diagnostic ability was calculated using conventional angiography as a reference.

Results: Noncontrast MRA had higher feasibility and technical success rates than CE MRA did (100% and 97.2% vs 83.3% and 90%, respectively). Noncontrast MRA yielded significantly better image quality in motion artifact (P = 0.016). The diagnostic ability for detecting RAS is without significant difference between NC MRA and CE MRA.

Conclusion: Although NC MRA and CE MRA demonstrated comparable ability in diagnosing RAS, NC MRA achieved better technical success rates, feasibility, and image quality in motion artifacts than CE MRA did.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000574DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

magnetic resonance
16
resonance angiography
16
technical success
16
mra
13
feasibility technical
12
image quality
12
performance noncontrast
8
noncontrast magnetic
8
detecting renal
8
renal artery
8

Similar Publications