INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this prospective study was to compare 3T and 1.5T magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for the follow-up of endovascular treated intracranial aneurysms to assess the grade of occlusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with 41 aneurysms who had undergone endovascular treatment with detachable coils were included. MRA was performed on the same day using an eight-channel sensitivity encoding head-coil with 3D axial inflow technique. At 3T, a contrast-enhanced transverse 3D fast gradient echo acquisition was also performed. Most patients underwent DSA the following day. MRA scans and DSA were classified first independently by two neuroradiologists and an interventional neuroradiologist. Secondly, a consensus was done. Source images, maximum intensity projection, multiplanar reconstruction and volume rendering reconstructions were used for MRA evaluations. A modification of the Raymond classification, previously used for DSA evaluation of recanalization, was used. RESULTS: Statistical comparison of the consensus showed that 3T MRA with 3D axial inflow technique had better agreement with DSA (kappa = 0.43) than 1.5T MRA(kappa = 0.21) and contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) at 3T (kappa = 0.17). The susceptibility artefacts from the coil mesh were significally smaller at 3T (p = 0.002-0.007) than at 1.5T. CONCLUSION: 3T MRA, using a sensitivity encoding head-coil, showed better agreement with DSA than 1.5T and CE-MRA at 3T for evaluation of aneurysms treated with endovascular coiling.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this prospective study was to compare 3T and 1.5T magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for the follow-up of endovascular treated intracranial aneurysms to assess the grade of occlusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with 41 aneurysms who had undergone endovascular treatment with detachable coils were included. MRA was performed on the same day using an eight-channel sensitivity encoding head-coil with 3D axial inflow technique. At 3T, a contrast-enhanced transverse 3D fast gradient echo acquisition was also performed. Most patients underwent DSA the following day. MRA scans and DSA were classified first independently by two neuroradiologists and an interventional neuroradiologist. Secondly, a consensus was done. Source images, maximum intensity projection, multiplanar reconstruction and volume rendering reconstructions were used for MRA evaluations. A modification of the Raymond classification, previously used for DSA evaluation of recanalization, was used. RESULTS: Statistical comparison of the consensus showed that 3T MRA with 3D axial inflow technique had better agreement with DSA (kappa = 0.43) than 1.5T MRA(kappa = 0.21) and contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) at 3T (kappa = 0.17). The susceptibility artefacts from the coil mesh were significally smaller at 3T (p = 0.002-0.007) than at 1.5T. CONCLUSION: 3T MRA, using a sensitivity encoding head-coil, showed better agreement with DSA than 1.5T and CE-MRA at 3T for evaluation of aneurysms treated with endovascular coiling.
Authors: Matthew T Walker; Jerome Tsai; Todd Parish; Brian Tzung; Ali Shaibani; Elizabeth Krupinski; Eric J Russell Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.825
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: 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: 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: 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
Authors: Jin Woo Choi; Hong Gee Roh; Won-Jin Moon; Na Ra Kim; Sung Gyu Moon; Chung Hwan Kang; Young Il Chun; Hyun-Seung Kang Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 3.500