BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Conventional angiography has been historically considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of cervical artery dissection, but MR imaging/MR angiography (MRA) and CT/CT angiography (CTA) are commonly used noninvasive alternatives. The goal of this study was to compare the ability of multidetector CT/CTA and MR imaging/MRA to detect common imaging findings of dissection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in the data base of our Stroke Center between 2003 and 2007 with dissections who had CT/CTA and MR imaging/MRA on initial work-up were reviewed retrospectively. Two neuroradiologists evaluated the images for associated findings of dissection, including acute ischemic stroke, luminal narrowing, vessel irregularity, wall thickening/hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, and intimal flap. The readers also subjectively rated each vessel on the basis of whether the imaging findings were more clearly displayed with CT/CTA or MR imaging/MRA or were equally apparent. RESULTS: Eighteen patients with 25 dissected vessels (15 internal carotid arteries [ICA] and 10 vertebral arteries [VA]) met the inclusion criteria. CT/CTA identified more intimal flaps, pseudoaneurysms, and high-grade stenoses than MR imaging/MRA. CT/CTA was preferred for diagnosis in 13 vessels (5 ICA, 8 VA), whereas MR imaging/MRA was preferred in 1 vessel (ICA). The 2 techniques were deemed equal in the remaining 11 vessels (9 ICA, 2 VA). A significant preference for CT/CTA was noted for VA dissections (P < .05), but not for ICA dissections. CONCLUSION: Multidetector CT/CTA visualized more features of cervical artery dissection than MR imaging/MRA. CT/CTA was subjectively favored for vertebral dissection, whereas there was no technique preference for ICA dissection. In many cases, MR imaging/MRA provided complementary or confirmatory information, particularly given its better depiction of ischemic complications.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Conventional angiography has been historically considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of cervical artery dissection, but MR imaging/MR angiography (MRA) and CT/CT angiography (CTA) are commonly used noninvasive alternatives. The goal of this study was to compare the ability of multidetector CT/CTA and MR imaging/MRA to detect common imaging findings of dissection. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients in the data base of our Stroke Center between 2003 and 2007 with dissections who had CT/CTA and MR imaging/MRA on initial work-up were reviewed retrospectively. Two neuroradiologists evaluated the images for associated findings of dissection, including acute ischemic stroke, luminal narrowing, vessel irregularity, wall thickening/hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, and intimal flap. The readers also subjectively rated each vessel on the basis of whether the imaging findings were more clearly displayed with CT/CTA or MR imaging/MRA or were equally apparent. RESULTS: Eighteen patients with 25 dissected vessels (15 internal carotid arteries [ICA] and 10 vertebral arteries [VA]) met the inclusion criteria. CT/CTA identified more intimal flaps, pseudoaneurysms, and high-grade stenoses than MR imaging/MRA. CT/CTA was preferred for diagnosis in 13 vessels (5 ICA, 8 VA), whereas MR imaging/MRA was preferred in 1 vessel (ICA). The 2 techniques were deemed equal in the remaining 11 vessels (9 ICA, 2 VA). A significant preference for CT/CTA was noted for VA dissections (P < .05), but not for ICA dissections. CONCLUSION: Multidetector CT/CTA visualized more features of cervical artery dissection than MR imaging/MRA. CT/CTA was subjectively favored for vertebral dissection, whereas there was no technique preference for ICA dissection. In many cases, MR imaging/MRA provided complementary or confirmatory information, particularly given its better depiction of ischemic complications.
Authors: M E Moseley; J Kucharczyk; J Mintorovitch; Y Cohen; J Kurhanewicz; N Derugin; H Asgari; D Norman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1990-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A A Dawkins; A L Evans; J Wattam; C A J Romanowski; D J A Connolly; T J Hodgson; S C Coley Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2007-06-27 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Timothy J Kaufmann; John Huston; Jay N Mandrekar; Cathy D Schleck; Kent R Thielen; David F Kallmes Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rainald Bachmann; Isabelle Nassenstein; Hendrik Kooijman; Ralf Dittrich; Christoph Stehling; Harald Kugel; Thomas Niederstadt; Gregor Kuhlenbäumer; E Bernd Ringelstein; Stefan Krämer; Walter Heindel Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: O Naggara; F Louillet; E Touzé; D Roy; X Leclerc; J-L Mas; J-P Pruvo; J-F Meder; C Oppenheim Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Adam D'Sa; Matthew D Alvin; Ryan Brody; Samrah Javed; Scott Faro; Rohini N Nadgir Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 2.804