TY - JOUR
T1 - Survey of the American Society of Neuroradiology Membership on the Use and Value of Extracranial Carotid Vessel Wall MRI
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.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 American Society of Neuroradiology. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/12/1
Y1 - 2022/12/1
N2 - 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.
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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85144637170&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85144637170&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3174/ajnr.A7720
DO - 10.3174/ajnr.A7720
M3 - Article
C2 - 36423951
AN - SCOPUS:85144637170
SN - 0195-6108
VL - 43
SP - 1756
EP - 1761
JO - American Journal of Neuroradiology
JF - American Journal of Neuroradiology
IS - 12
ER -