Search

Purpose: To evaluate relative and absolute utilization trends and practice patterns in the United States for MRA and CTA., Methods: Using Medicare Part B physician payment databases (2013-2020), MRA and CTA interpreting physicians and exams were identified using the unique MRA and CTA Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes. The number of exams, physicians, demographics, use of contrast, and payments were summarized annually and analyzed to evaluate trends before and during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: From 2013 to 2019, the annual number of MRA exams performed decreased by 17.9 %, while the number of CTA exams increased by 90.3 %. The number of physicians interpreting MRA decreased in both hospital (-17.2 %) and outpatient (-7.5 %) environments. The number of physicians interpreting CTA increased in both hospital (+29.4 %) and outpatient (+54.3 %) environments. During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, MRA utilization decreased across all imaging environments by 25.0 % whereas CTA only decreased by 5.5 %. Intracranial MRA studies were most often performed without contrast, while contrast use for neck MRA was performed at similar rates as non-contrast exams., Conclusion: The overall utilization of MRA and the number of interpreting physicians are decreasing. On the other hand, CTA use and its number of interpreting physicians are increasing. During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, use of both MRA and CTA decreased, but the utilization of MRA decreased at five times the rate of CTA., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background and Purpose: Intracranial vessel wall MR imaging is an emerging technique for intracranial vasculopathy assessment. Our aim was to investigate intracranial vessel wall MR imaging use by the American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR) members at their home institutions, including indications and barriers to implementation., Materials and Methods: The ASNR Vessel Wall Imaging Study Group survey on vessel wall MR imaging use, frequency, applications, MR imaging systems and field strength used, protocol development approaches, vendor engagement, reasons for not using vessel wall MR imaging, ordering-provider interest, and impact on clinical care, was distributed to the ASNR membership between April 2 and August 30, 2019., Results: There were 532 responses; 79 were excluded due to nonresponse and 42 due to redundant institutional responses, leaving 411 responses. Fifty-two percent indicated that their institution performs vessel wall MR imaging, with 71.5% performed at least 1-2 times/month, most frequently on 3T MR imaging, and 87.7% using 3D sequences. Protocols most commonly included were T1-weighted pre- and postcontrast and TOF-MRA; 60.6% had limited contributions from vendors or were still in protocol development. Vasculopathy differentiation (94.4%), cryptogenic stroke (41.3%), aneurysm (38.0%), and atherosclerosis (37.6%) evaluation were the most common indications. For those not performing vessel wall MR imaging, interpretation (53.1%) or technical (46.4%) expertise, knowledge of applications (50.5%), or limitations of clinician (56.7%) or radiologist (49.0%) interest were the most common reasons. If technical/expertise obstacles were overcome, 56.4% of those not performing vessel wall MR imaging indicated that they would perform it. Ordering providers most frequently inquiring about vessel wall MR imaging were from stroke neurology (56.5%) and neurosurgery (25.1%), while 34.3% indicated that no providers had inquired., Conclusions: More than 50% of neuroradiology groups use vessel wall MR imaging for intracranial vasculopathy characterization and differentiation, emphasizing the need for additional technical and educational support, especially as clinical vessel wall MR imaging implementation continues to grow., (© 2022 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in widespread disruption to the global economy, including demand for imaging services. The resulting reduction in demand for imaging services had an abrupt and substantial impact on private radiology practices, which are heavily dependent on examination volumes for practice revenues. The goal of this report is to describe the specific experiences of radiologists working in various types of private radiology practices during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Herein, the authors describe factors determining the impact of the pandemic on private practices, the challenges these practices faced, the cost levers leaders adjusted, and the government subsidies sought. In addition, the authors describe adjustments practices are making to their mid- and long-term strategic plans to pivot for long-term success while managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Private practices have crafted tiered strategies to respond to the impact of the pandemic by pulling various cost levers to adjust service availability, staffing, compensation, benefits, time off, and expense reductions. In addition, they have sought additional revenues, within the boundaries of their practice, to mitigate ongoing financial losses. The longer term impact of the pandemic will alter existing practices, making some of them more likely than others to succeed in the years ahead. This report synthesizes the collective experience of private-practice radiologists shared with members of the Radiological Society of North America COVID-19 Task Force, including discussions with colleagues and leaders of private-practice radiology groups from across the United States., (© RSNA, 2020.)

Objective: The study aimed to validate admission clinical and radiographic features of pediatric patients with traumatic epidural hematoma (EDH) that lead to safe observation., Methods: A Level I trauma center radiology and electronic medical record databases were retrospectively queried for pediatric patients with EDH on CT scan between 1/1/2016 and 10/1/2016. Patient imaging, treatment and outcome variables were abstracted. Characteristics of the cohort were compared to an external cohort used to develop prediction rules for surgical intervention. External validity of the prediction rules was assessed., Results: 195 eligible subjects were included in the study, 37 of which failed observation and required surgery while 158 underwent successful observation. The surgical cohort had significantly thicker ( p < .001) and higher volume ( p < .001) EDH, increased midline shift ( p < .001) and higher likelihood of mass effect ( p < .001). There was significantly higher residual neurologic deficit rate (54% vs 23%, p < .001) and hospital mortality (5% vs 0%, p = .035) amongst the surgical group. There were significant differences in patient demographic, clinical and imaging characteristics between the internal and external cohorts. The predictive rules externally developed yielded positive predictive value of 97.7% (95% CI = 93.3-99.5%), negative predictive value of 24.5% (95% CI = 16.2-34.4%), specificity of 88.5% (95% CI = 69.9-97.6%), and sensitivity of 63.8% (95% CI = 56.6-70.5%) for successful observation., Conclusion: The current study validates previously developed prediction rules for safe observation of pediatric EDH in a cohort with distinct characteristics from the external cohort. Specifically, patients with no mass effect, EDH volume <15 ml and no neurological deficits are less likely to fail observation., Advances in Knowledge: The current study validates prediction rules for safe observation of pediatric EDH in a distinct pediatric cohort that provides further support to conservative management in these circumstances.

Identification of carotid artery atherosclerosis is conventionally based on measurements of luminal stenosis and surface irregularities using in vivo imaging techniques including sonography, CT and MR angiography, and digital subtraction angiography. However, histopathologic studies demonstrate considerable differences between plaques with identical degrees of stenosis and indicate that certain plaque features are associated with increased risk for ischemic events. The ability to look beyond the lumen using highly developed vessel wall imaging methods to identify plaque vulnerable to disruption has prompted an active debate as to whether a paradigm shift is needed to move away from relying on measurements of luminal stenosis for gauging the risk of ischemic injury. Further evaluation in randomized clinical trials will help to better define the exact role of plaque imaging in clinical decision-making. However, current carotid vessel wall imaging techniques can be informative. The goal of this article is to present the perspective of the ASNR Vessel Wall Imaging Study Group as it relates to the current status of arterial wall imaging in carotid artery disease., (© 2018 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.)