BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 4D-MRA is a promising technique in the diagnosis and follow-up of cAVMs. The purpose of this study was to compare 4D-MRA in the pre- and postoperative evaluation of cAVMs with DSA or intraoperative findings as the standards of reference regarding qualitative and quantitative parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six consecutive patients with cAVMs (30 women) underwent both 4D-MRA and DSA. Preoperative 4D-MRA was excluded from analysis in 1 patient (movement artifacts). Twenty-five patients underwent surgery on cAVMs and underwent both imaging modalities pre- and postoperatively. 4D-MRA was performed with either 0.5-mol/L gadolinium-diethylene-triamine pentaacetic acid (group 1: voxel size, 1.1 × 1.1 × 1.4 mm(3); 608 ms/dynamic frame; 19 patients) or 1.0-mol/L gadobutrol (group 2: voxel size, 1.1 × 1.1 × 1.1 mm(3); 572 ms/dynamic frame; additional alternating view sharing; 37 patients). Two readers independently reviewed 4D-MRA and DSA regarding the Spetzler-Martin classification, arterial feeders, and postoperative residual filling. Vessel sharpness, vessel diameter, and VBC of 4D-MRA were quantified. RESULTS: Preoperative Spetzler-Martin classification 4D-MRA and DSA ratings matched in 55/55 patients (Spetzler-Martin grades: I, 12; II, 22; III, 15; IV, 5; V, 1), and 93/100 arterial feeders were correctly identified by preoperative 4D-MRA (7 additional arterial feeders identified by DSA only: group 1, 3/19; group 2, 4/36). Postoperative 4D-MRA and DSA matched in 25/25 patients (residual filling, 1/25). Vessel sharpness and diameters did not differ substantially between the 2 groups. VBC was significantly higher in group 2 (P < .005). CONCLUSIONS: 4D-MRA is a reliable tool that allows predicting Spetzler-Martin classification and postoperative residual filling; it hence allows substituting DSA in the pre- and postoperative evaluation of patients with cerebral AVMs.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 4D-MRA is a promising technique in the diagnosis and follow-up of cAVMs. The purpose of this study was to compare 4D-MRA in the pre- and postoperative evaluation of cAVMs with DSA or intraoperative findings as the standards of reference regarding qualitative and quantitative parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six consecutive patients with cAVMs (30 women) underwent both 4D-MRA and DSA. Preoperative 4D-MRA was excluded from analysis in 1 patient (movement artifacts). Twenty-five patients underwent surgery on cAVMs and underwent both imaging modalities pre- and postoperatively. 4D-MRA was performed with either 0.5-mol/L gadolinium-diethylene-triamine pentaacetic acid (group 1: voxel size, 1.1 × 1.1 × 1.4 mm(3); 608 ms/dynamic frame; 19 patients) or 1.0-mol/L gadobutrol (group 2: voxel size, 1.1 × 1.1 × 1.1 mm(3); 572 ms/dynamic frame; additional alternating view sharing; 37 patients). Two readers independently reviewed 4D-MRA and DSA regarding the Spetzler-Martin classification, arterial feeders, and postoperative residual filling. Vessel sharpness, vessel diameter, and VBC of 4D-MRA were quantified. RESULTS: Preoperative Spetzler-Martin classification 4D-MRA and DSA ratings matched in 55/55 patients (Spetzler-Martin grades: I, 12; II, 22; III, 15; IV, 5; V, 1), and 93/100 arterial feeders were correctly identified by preoperative 4D-MRA (7 additional arterial feeders identified by DSA only: group 1, 3/19; group 2, 4/36). Postoperative 4D-MRA and DSA matched in 25/25 patients (residual filling, 1/25). Vessel sharpness and diameters did not differ substantially between the 2 groups. VBC was significantly higher in group 2 (P < .005). CONCLUSIONS: 4D-MRA is a reliable tool that allows predicting Spetzler-Martin classification and postoperative residual filling; it hence allows substituting DSA in the pre- and postoperative evaluation of patients with cerebral AVMs.
Authors: Alex Etienne; René M Botnar; Arianne M C Van Muiswinkel; Peter Boesiger; Warren J Manning; Matthias Stuber Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Lirong Yan; Sumei Wang; Yan Zhuo; Ronald L Wolf; Michael F Stiefel; Jing An; Yongquan Ye; Qian Zhang; Elias R Melhem; Danny J J Wang Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C A Mistretta; T M Grist; F R Korosec; R Frayne; D C Peters; Y Mazaheri; T J Carrol Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: S Nishimura; T Hirai; A Sasao; M Kitajima; M Morioka; Y Kai; Y Omori; T Okuda; R Murakami; H Fukuoka; K Awai; J-I Kuratsu; Y Yamashita Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Julia V Velikina; Kevin M Johnson; Yijing Wu; Alexey A Samsonov; Patrick Turski; Charles A Mistretta Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Stephen J Riederer; Clifton R Haider; Eric A Borisch; Paul T Weavers; Phillip M Young Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Tilman Schubert; Yijing Wu; Kevin M Johnson; Oliver Wieben; Jane Maksimovic; Charles Mistretta; Patrick Turski Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: W Chang; Y Wu; K Johnson; M Loecher; O Wieben; M Edjlali; C Oppenheim; P Roca; J Hald; B Aagaard-Kienitz; D Niemann; C Mistretta; P Turski Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Grant S Roberts; Michael W Loecher; Alma Spahic; Kevin M Johnson; Patrick A Turski; Laura B Eisenmenger; Oliver Wieben Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 4.668