BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Catheter angiography has been the criterion standard for follow-up evaluation of coiled intracranial aneurysms. In our center, CE-MRA has been used to evaluate aneurysm recanalization. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and usefulness of a CE-MRA protocol for following patients with intracranial aneurysms treated with endovascular coiling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From September 2003 to December 2006, 134 aneurysms were treated by endovascular coiling in 124 patients by using detachable coils. These patients were followed with CE-MRA at 3 months, 15 months, and 3 and 5 years. MRAs were analyzed by 2 interventional neuroradiologists. Findings were assigned to 3 categories: complete obliteration (class 1), residual neck (class 2), and residual aneurysm (class 3). RESULTS: Initially, CE-MRA demonstrated 67 (50%) complete obliterations (class 1), 57 (41.79%) residual necks (class 2), and 8 (5.97%) residual aneurysms (class 3). No patient experienced rebleed during the follow-up period. A total of 214 patient-years of follow-up were obtained (range, 0-53 months). Two (1.49%) patients died after the follow-up, and 11 (8.21%) patients were lost to follow-up. On follow-up, 76 (56.72%) patients showed stable results. Fifty-six (41.79%) aneurysms showed change in their obliteration pattern. Of these 56, 47 demonstrated recanalization and 9 (6.72%) showed further obliteration. Most of the aneurysms that showed change in their obliteration remained stable on follow-up. Only 11 (8.21% of the total and 23.4% of those who showed recanalization) patients underwent recoiling or clipping. CONCLUSIONS: CE-MRA can be used in routine practice to follow-up aneurysm recanalization noninvasively. CE-MRA permits close-interval follow-up and may show more filling of the aneurysm neck or sac than DSA.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Catheter angiography has been the criterion standard for follow-up evaluation of coiled intracranial aneurysms. In our center, CE-MRA has been used to evaluate aneurysm recanalization. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and usefulness of a CE-MRA protocol for following patients with intracranial aneurysms treated with endovascular coiling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From September 2003 to December 2006, 134 aneurysms were treated by endovascular coiling in 124 patients by using detachable coils. These patients were followed with CE-MRA at 3 months, 15 months, and 3 and 5 years. MRAs were analyzed by 2 interventional neuroradiologists. Findings were assigned to 3 categories: complete obliteration (class 1), residual neck (class 2), and residual aneurysm (class 3). RESULTS: Initially, CE-MRA demonstrated 67 (50%) complete obliterations (class 1), 57 (41.79%) residual necks (class 2), and 8 (5.97%) residual aneurysms (class 3). No patient experienced rebleed during the follow-up period. A total of 214 patient-years of follow-up were obtained (range, 0-53 months). Two (1.49%) patients died after the follow-up, and 11 (8.21%) patients were lost to follow-up. On follow-up, 76 (56.72%) patients showed stable results. Fifty-six (41.79%) aneurysms showed change in their obliteration pattern. Of these 56, 47 demonstrated recanalization and 9 (6.72%) showed further obliteration. Most of the aneurysms that showed change in their obliteration remained stable on follow-up. Only 11 (8.21% of the total and 23.4% of those who showed recanalization) patients underwent recoiling or clipping. CONCLUSIONS: CE-MRA can be used in routine practice to follow-up aneurysm recanalization noninvasively. CE-MRA permits close-interval follow-up and may show more filling of the aneurysm neck or sac than DSA.
Authors: Andrew Molyneux; Richard Kerr; Irene Stratton; Peter Sandercock; Mike Clarke; Julia Shrimpton; Rury Holman Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-10-26 Impact factor: 79.321
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: 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: N Anzalone; F Scomazzoni; M Cirillo; C Righi; F Simionato; M Cadioli; A Iadanza; M A Kirchin; G Scotti Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-06-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Andrew J Molyneux; Richard S C Kerr; Ly-Mee Yu; Mike Clarke; Mary Sneade; Julia A Yarnold; Peter Sandercock Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Sep 3-9 Impact factor: 79.321
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: G Spilberg; S L Carniato; R M King; I M J van der Bom; M Mehra; R P Walvick; A K Wakhloo; M J Gounis Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: G Hwang; C Jung; S H Sheen; H Park; H S Kang; S H Lee; C W Oh; Y S Chung; M H Han; O K Kwon Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 3.825