BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: the purpose of this study was to identify significant morphological and hemodynamic parameters that discriminate intracranial aneurysm rupture status using 3-dimensional angiography and computational fluid dynamics. METHODS: one hundred nineteen intracranial aneurysms (38 ruptured, 81 unruptured) were analyzed from 3-dimensional angiographic images and computational fluid dynamics. Six morphological and 7 hemodynamic parameters were evaluated for significance with respect to rupture. Receiver operating characteristic analysis identified area under the curve (AUC) and optimal thresholds separating ruptured from unruptured aneurysms for each parameter. Significant parameters were examined by multivariate logistic regression analysis in 3 predictive models-morphology only, hemodynamics only, and combined-to identify independent discriminants, and the AUC receiver operating characteristic of the predicted probability of rupture status was compared among these models. RESULTS: morphological parameters (size ratio, undulation index, ellipticity index, and nonsphericity index) and hemodynamic parameters (average wall shear stress [WSS], maximum intra-aneurysmal WSS, low WSS area, average oscillatory shear index, number of vortices, and relative resident time) achieved statistical significance (P<0.01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated size ratio to be the only independently significant factor in the morphology model (AUC, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.91), whereas WSS and oscillatory shear index were the only independently significant variables in the hemodynamics model (AUC, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.93). The combined model retained all 3 variables, size ratio, WSS, and oscillatory shear index (AUC, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: all 3 models-morphological (based on size ratio), hemodynamic (based on WSS and oscillatory shear index), and combined-discriminate intracranial aneurysm rupture status with high AUC values. Hemodynamics is as important as morphology in discriminating aneurysm rupture status.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: the purpose of this study was to identify significant morphological and hemodynamic parameters that discriminate intracranial aneurysm rupture status using 3-dimensional angiography and computational fluid dynamics. METHODS: one hundred nineteen intracranial aneurysms (38 ruptured, 81 unruptured) were analyzed from 3-dimensional angiographic images and computational fluid dynamics. Six morphological and 7 hemodynamic parameters were evaluated for significance with respect to rupture. Receiver operating characteristic analysis identified area under the curve (AUC) and optimal thresholds separating ruptured from unruptured aneurysms for each parameter. Significant parameters were examined by multivariate logistic regression analysis in 3 predictive models-morphology only, hemodynamics only, and combined-to identify independent discriminants, and the AUC receiver operating characteristic of the predicted probability of rupture status was compared among these models. RESULTS: morphological parameters (size ratio, undulation index, ellipticity index, and nonsphericity index) and hemodynamic parameters (average wall shear stress [WSS], maximum intra-aneurysmal WSS, low WSS area, average oscillatory shear index, number of vortices, and relative resident time) achieved statistical significance (P<0.01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated size ratio to be the only independently significant factor in the morphology model (AUC, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.91), whereas WSS and oscillatory shear index were the only independently significant variables in the hemodynamics model (AUC, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.93). The combined model retained all 3 variables, size ratio, WSS, and oscillatory shear index (AUC, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: all 3 models-morphological (based on size ratio), hemodynamic (based on WSS and oscillatory shear index), and combined-discriminate intracranial aneurysm rupture status with high AUC values. Hemodynamics is as important as morphology in discriminating aneurysm rupture status.
Authors: Heather A Himburg; Deborah M Grzybowski; Andrew L Hazel; Jeffrey A LaMack; Xue-Mei Li; Morton H Friedman Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2004-01-08 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Anthony G Passerini; Denise C Polacek; Congzhu Shi; Nadeene M Francesco; Elisabetta Manduchi; Gregory R Grant; William F Pritchard; Steven Powell; Gary Y Chang; Christian J Stoeckert; Peter F Davies Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2004-02-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: T R Forget; R Benitez; E Veznedaroglu; A Sharan; W Mitchell; M Silva; R H Rosenwasser Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Yiemeng Hoi; Hui Meng; Scott H Woodward; Bernard R Bendok; Ricardo A Hanel; Lee R Guterman; L Nelson Hopkins Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: L Goubergrits; J Schaller; U Kertzscher; N van den Bruck; K Poethkow; Ch Petz; H-Ch Hege; A Spuler Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 4.118
Authors: B J Chung; R Doddasomayajula; F Mut; F Detmer; M B Pritz; F Hamzei-Sichani; W Brinjikji; D F Kallmes; C M Jimenez; C M Putman; J R Cebral Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Philipp Berg; Samuel Voß; Gábor Janiga; Sylvia Saalfeld; Aslak W Bergersen; Kristian Valen-Sendstad; Jan Bruening; Leonid Goubergrits; Andreas Spuler; Tin Lok Chiu; Anderson Chun On Tsang; Gabriele Copelli; Benjamin Csippa; György Paál; Gábor Závodszky; Felicitas J Detmer; Bong J Chung; Juan R Cebral; Soichiro Fujimura; Hiroyuki Takao; Christof Karmonik; Saba Elias; Nicole M Cancelliere; Mehdi Najafi; David A Steinman; Vitor M Pereira; Senol Piskin; Ender A Finol; Mariya Pravdivtseva; Prasanth Velvaluri; Hamidreza Rajabzadeh-Oghaz; Nikhil Paliwal; Hui Meng; Santhosh Seshadhri; Sreenivas Venguru; Masaaki Shojima; Sergey Sindeev; Sergey Frolov; Yi Qian; Yu-An Wu; Kent D Carlson; David F Kallmes; Dan Dragomir-Daescu; Oliver Beuing Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: J J Schneiders; H A Marquering; R van den Berg; E VanBavel; B Velthuis; G J E Rinkel; C B Majoie Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 3.825