Vena cava 3D contrast-enhanced MR venography: a pictorial review.

Three-dimensional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance venography (CE MRV) is a sensitive and accurate method for diagnosing vena cava pathologies. The commonly used indirect approach involves a nondiluted gadolinium contrast agent injected into an upper limb vein or, occasionally, a pedal vein for assessment of the superior or inferior vena cava. In our studies, a coronal 3D fast multi-planar spoiled gradient-echo acquisition was used. A pre-contrast scan was obtained to ensure correct coverage of the region of interest. We initiated contrast-enhanced acquisition 15 sec after the start of contrast agent injection and performed the procedure twice. The image sets were obtained during two 20-30-sec breath hold, with a breathing rest of 5-6 sec, to obtain the first-pass and delayed arteriovenous phases. For patients with Budd-Chiari syndrome, a third acquisition coinciding with late venous phase was collected to visualize the hepatic veins, which was carried out by one additional acquisition after a 5-6-sec breathing time. This review describes the clinical application of 3D CE MRV in vena cava congenital anomalies, superior and inferior vena cava syndrome, Budd-Chiari syndrome, peripheral vein thrombosis extending to the vena cava, pre-operational evaluation in portosystemic shunting and post-surgical follow-up, and road-mapping for the placement and evaluation of complications of central venous devices.

3D contrast-enhanced MR portography and direct X-ray portography: a correlation study.

Our objective was to compare 3D contrast-enhanced MR portography (3D CE MRP) on a 1.5-T MR imager with direct X-ray portography. Twenty-six consecutive patients underwent 3D CE MRP with in-plane resolution of 1.4 or 1.8 mm, and direct X-ray portography. The findings of these two methods were evaluated and compared. The main portal vein (PV), right PV with its anterior and posterior segmental branches, and left PV including its sagittal segment were shown clearly without diagnostic problem in all cases on MRP. The main PV appearance was accordant with MRP and X-ray. For intrahepatic PVs, the results agreed in 21 patients but disagreed in 5 patients. In 1 patient with a huge tumor in right liver, the right posterior PV was classified as occluded at MRP, but diffusely narrowed at X-ray. The findings of left intrahepatic PV were discordant in 3 patients with hepatocelluar carcinoma in the left lobe. The MRP demonstrated complete occlusion of the left PVs, whereas X-ray showed proximal narrowing and distal occlusion. In another patient with hepatocelluar carcinoma, a small non-occlusive thrombus involving the sagittal segment of the left PV was seen on MRP but not on X-ray. With demonstration of varices and portosystemic shunts, MRP showed results similar to those of X-ray, except one recanalized para-umbilical vein was excluded from the field of view at MRP due to the patient's limited ability of breathholding. The 3D CE MRP correlated well with direct X-ray portography in most cases, it was limited in distinguishing narrowing of an intrahepatic PV from occlusion, but it showed advantage in demonstrating small thrombus within PV.