Diagnostic performance of TR-MRA and FP-MRA compared with DSA, and interobserver agreement
| TR-MRA (95% CI) | FP-MRA (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnosis of SDAVF | ||
| Sensitivity | 100% (59%–100%) | 100% (76%–100%) |
| Specificity | 80% (28%–99%) | 82% (48%–98%) |
| Positive predictive value | 91% (59%–100%) | 91% (71%–99%) |
| Negative predictive value | 100% (28%–100%) | 100% (55%–100%) |
| κ Agreement | 1.0 (1.0–1.0) | 1.0 (1.0–1.0) |
| Localization | ||
| Reader accuracy to within 1 level of DSAa | 100% (72%–100%) | 87% (62%–96%) |
| κ Agreement | 1.0 (1.0–1.0) | 0.87 (0.70–1.00) |
↵a When SDAVF location within the FOV (n = 15); in 5 cases where the fistula was beyond the FOV, at least 1 of the observers suspected fistula outside FOV on MRA.