INTRODUCTION: Long-term follow-up after coil embolization of intracranial aneurysms is mandatory to monitor coil compacting and aneurysm recurrence. Most centers perform one digital subtraction angiography (DSA) on follow-up continuing with time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography (TOF-MRA). This study explores the diagnostic value of TOF-MRA at 1.5 T versus 3 T compared to DSA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 18 patients with 20 aneurysms treated with coil embolization, TOF-MRA at 1.5 and 3 T were performed the day before follow-up DSA, the latter serving as reference. Optimized diagnostic protocols were applied (1.5 T: 0.78 x 0.55 x 0.8 mm, voxel size; acquisition time (TA), 6.37 min; 3 T: 0.56 x 0.45 x 0.65 mm, voxel size; TA, 3.12 min). Three independent neuroradiologists experienced in neuroendovascular therapy rated the occlusion rate ("complete occlusion" vs. "residual neck" vs. "residual aneurysm") and compared the two methods subjectively. Weighted kappa statistics were calculated to assess the level of interobserver agreement. RESULTS: Compared to DSA, TOF-MRA was more sensitive in detecting neck remnants, with a slight advantage at 3 T. Regarding artifact load, there are advantages at 1.5 T. Ratings of the occlusion rate correlated highly between all observers (r > 0.85, p < 0.001, respectively). Interobserver agreement was high in all cases (small ka, Cyrillic (w) approximately 0.8, respectively). CONCLUSION: TOF-MRA is a reliable tool for follow-up imaging of cerebral aneurysms after endovascular treatment. Our study shows no advantage of TOF-MRA at 3 T over 1.5 T, when comparable measurement protocols are applied. TOF-MRA at 1.5 T therefore provides appropriate information regarding a therapeutic decision.
INTRODUCTION: Long-term follow-up after coil embolization of intracranial aneurysms is mandatory to monitor coil compacting and aneurysm recurrence. Most centers perform one digital subtraction angiography (DSA) on follow-up continuing with time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography (TOF-MRA). This study explores the diagnostic value of TOF-MRA at 1.5 T versus 3 T compared to DSA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 18 patients with 20 aneurysms treated with coil embolization, TOF-MRA at 1.5 and 3 T were performed the day before follow-up DSA, the latter serving as reference. Optimized diagnostic protocols were applied (1.5 T: 0.78 x 0.55 x 0.8 mm, voxel size; acquisition time (TA), 6.37 min; 3 T: 0.56 x 0.45 x 0.65 mm, voxel size; TA, 3.12 min). Three independent neuroradiologists experienced in neuroendovascular therapy rated the occlusion rate ("complete occlusion" vs. "residual neck" vs. "residual aneurysm") and compared the two methods subjectively. Weighted kappa statistics were calculated to assess the level of interobserver agreement. RESULTS: Compared to DSA, TOF-MRA was more sensitive in detecting neck remnants, with a slight advantage at 3 T. Regarding artifact load, there are advantages at 1.5 T. Ratings of the occlusion rate correlated highly between all observers (r > 0.85, p < 0.001, respectively). Interobserver agreement was high in all cases (small ka, Cyrillic (w) approximately 0.8, respectively). CONCLUSION: TOF-MRA is a reliable tool for follow-up imaging of cerebral aneurysms after endovascular treatment. Our study shows no advantage of TOF-MRA at 3 T over 1.5 T, when comparable measurement protocols are applied. TOF-MRA at 1.5 T therefore provides appropriate information regarding a therapeutic decision.
Authors: Hanzhang Lu; Lidia M Nagae-Poetscher; Xavier Golay; Doris Lin; Martin Pomper; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: L Brunereau; J P Cottier; C B Sonier; B Medioni; P Bertrand; P Rouleau; D Sirinelli; D Herbreteau Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1999 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Charles B L M Majoie; Marieke E Sprengers; Willem Jan J van Rooij; Cristina Lavini; Menno Sluzewski; Jeroen C van Rijn; Gerard J den Heeten Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Gordon F Gibbs; John Huston; Matthew A Bernstein; Stephen J Riederer; Robert D Brown Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: N Anzalone; C Righi; F Simionato; F Scomazzoni; G Pagani; G Calori; P Santino; G Scotti Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Michel Piotin; Laurent Spelle; Charbel Mounayer; Marco T Salles-Rezende; Daniel Giansante-Abud; Ricardo Vanzin-Santos; Jacques Moret Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-02-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H A Deutschmann; M Augustin; J Simbrunner; B Unger; H Schoellnast; G A Fritz; G E Klein Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Adriana Campi; Najib Ramzi; Andrew J Molyneux; Paul E Summers; Richard S C Kerr; Mary Sneade; Julia A Yarnold; Joan Rischmiller; James V Byrne Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-03-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Joanna M Wardlaw; Will Brindle; Ana M Casado; Kirsten Shuler; Moira Henderson; Brenda Thomas; Jennifer Macfarlane; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Katherine Lymer; Zoe Morris; Cyril Pernet; William Nailon; Trevor Ahearn; Abdul Nashirudeen Mumuni; Carlos Mugruza; John McLean; Goultchira Chakirova; Yuehui Terry Tao; Johanna Simpson; Andrew C Stanfield; Harriet Johnston; Jehill Parikh; Natalie A Royle; Janet De Wilde; Mark E Bastin; Nick Weir; Andrew Farrall; Maria C Valdes Hernandez Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M J van Amerongen; H D Boogaarts; J de Vries; A L M Verbeek; F J A Meijer; M Prokop; R H M A Bartels Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: T J Kaufmann; J Huston; H J Cloft; J Mandrekar; L Gray; M A Bernstein; J L Atkinson; D F Kallmes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Guilherme S Nakiri; Antonio C Santos; Thiago G Abud; Davi C Aragon; Benedicto O Colli; Daniel G Abud Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2011 Impact factor: 2.365