Clinical Validation of Non-Contrast Enhanced MR Venography

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Clinical Validation of Non-Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Thoracic Venography

  • IRAS ID

    188500

  • Contact name

    David Lomas

  • Contact email

    djl15@radiol.cam.ac.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Cambridge

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    2 years, 0 months, 1 days

  • Research summary

    Patients with long-term illnesses (kidney or bowel failure) often need tubes and lines placed into the large veins inside the chest to monitor wellbeing and to provide treatments. These tubes have to be replaced regularly and in many patients the veins become damaged or blocked as a result. This makes insertion of the tubes increasingly difficult and increases the risk of complications, which may be serious. Since the damaged veins may not cause symptoms we have to map the veins in the chest using imaging techniques.

    Current best clinical practice is to image the large veins using magnetic resonance imaging that involves injection of a dye into the veins, which is difficult in these patients and may be harmful in those with kidney failure. We have developed a new method in volunteers that needs no injection – avoiding these risks. However, to prove it works in damaged veins we need to undertake this study comparing our new method with the current one in such patients.

    This feasibility study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of the large veins of the chest in patients referred for assessment prior to insertion of tubes and lines of the large thoracic veins. The study compares current best clinical practice of contrast-enhanced to the proposed future best clinical practice of non-contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

  • REC name

    East of England - Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    15/EE/0422

  • Date of REC Opinion

    2 Feb 2016

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion