BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Our aim was to compare contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) and 3D time-of-flight (TOF) MRA at 3T for follow-up of coiled cerebral aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients treated with Guglielmi detachable coils for 54 cerebral aneurysms were evaluated at 3T MRA. 3D TOF MRA (TR/TE = 23/3.5; SENSE factor = 2.5) and CE-MRA by using a 3D ultrafast gradient-echo sequence (TR/TE = 5.9/1.8; SENSE factor = 3) enhanced with 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine were performed in the same session. Source images, 3D maximum intensity projection, 3D shaded surface display, and/or 3D volume-rendered reconstructions were evaluated in terms of aneurysm occlusion/patency and artifact presence. RESULTS: In terms of clinical classification, the 2 MRA sequences were equivalent for 53 of the 54 treated aneurysms: 21 were considered fully occluded, whereas 16 were considered to have a residual neck and 16 were considered residually patent at follow-up MRA. The remaining aneurysm appeared fully occluded at TOF MRA but had a residual patent neck at CE-MRA. Visualization of residual aneurysm patency was significantly (P = .001) better with CE-MRA compared with TOF MRA for 10 (31.3%) of the 32 treated aneurysms considered residually patent with both sequences. Coil artifacts were present in 5 cases at TOF MRA but in none at CE-MRA. No relationship was apparent between the visualization of patency and either the size of the aneurysm or the interval between embolization and follow-up. CONCLUSION: At follow-up MRA at 3T, unenhanced TOF and CE-MRA sequences are similarly effective at classifying coiled aneurysms as occluded or residually patent. However, CE-MRA is superior to TOF MRA for visualization of residual patency and is associated with fewer artifacts.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Our aim was to compare contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) and 3D time-of-flight (TOF) MRA at 3T for follow-up of coiled cerebral aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients treated with Guglielmi detachable coils for 54 cerebral aneurysms were evaluated at 3T MRA. 3D TOF MRA (TR/TE = 23/3.5; SENSE factor = 2.5) and CE-MRA by using a 3D ultrafast gradient-echo sequence (TR/TE = 5.9/1.8; SENSE factor = 3) enhanced with 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine were performed in the same session. Source images, 3D maximum intensity projection, 3D shaded surface display, and/or 3D volume-rendered reconstructions were evaluated in terms of aneurysm occlusion/patency and artifact presence. RESULTS: In terms of clinical classification, the 2 MRA sequences were equivalent for 53 of the 54 treated aneurysms: 21 were considered fully occluded, whereas 16 were considered to have a residual neck and 16 were considered residually patent at follow-up MRA. The remaining aneurysm appeared fully occluded at TOF MRA but had a residual patent neck at CE-MRA. Visualization of residual aneurysm patency was significantly (P = .001) better with CE-MRA compared with TOF MRA for 10 (31.3%) of the 32 treated aneurysms considered residually patent with both sequences. Coil artifacts were present in 5 cases at TOF MRA but in none at CE-MRA. No relationship was apparent between the visualization of patency and either the size of the aneurysm or the interval between embolization and follow-up. CONCLUSION: At follow-up MRA at 3T, unenhanced TOF and CE-MRA sequences are similarly effective at classifying coiled aneurysms as occluded or residually patent. However, CE-MRA is superior to TOF MRA for visualization of residual patency and is associated with fewer artifacts.
Authors: Jean Marie U-King-Im; Brendan Koo; Rikin A Trivedi; Nicholas J Higgins; Keng Y Tay; Justin J Cross; Nagui M Antoun; Jonathan H Gillard Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-02-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: John Thornton; Gerard M Debrun; Victor A Aletich; Qasim Bashir; Fady T Charbel; James Ausman Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 4.654
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: Jean Raymond; François Guilbert; Alain Weill; Stavros A Georganos; Louis Juravsky; Anick Lambert; Julie Lamoureux; Miguel Chagnon; Daniel Roy Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-05-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Gordon F Gibbs; John Huston; Matt A Bernstein; Stephen J Riederer; Robert D Brown Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Kambiz Nael; Stefan G Ruehm; Henrik J Michaely; Whitney Pope; Gerhard Laub; J Paul Finn; J Pablo Villablanca Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 6.016
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: 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: C Zhu; X Wang; L Eisenmenger; B Tian; Q Liu; A J Degnan; C Hess; D Saloner; J Lu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Manasi Ramachandran; Rohini Retarekar; Robert E Harbaugh; David Hasan; Bruno Policeni; Robert Rosenwasser; Christopher Ogilvy; Madhavan L Raghavan Journal: Cardiovasc Eng Technol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.495
Authors: Hyun Ho Oh; Cheolkyu Jung; Tae Hong Lee; Bae Ju Kwon; Young Kim; Kyu Chang Lee Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 1.610