INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted in order to evaluate the value of time-resolved contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (TR-CE-MRA) with a 3.0-T magnetic field compared to digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of brain arteriovenous malformation (bAVM). METHODS: Nineteen patients with 19 angiographically confirmed untreated bAVM were investigated with both DSA and TR-CE-MRA for the initial diagnosis. Examinations were compared by two independent readers. Interobserver agreement and intermodality agreement with respect to nidus size, arterial feeders, and venous drainage were determined using the K statistic test. Also, the quality of the TR-CE-MRA images was evaluated. RESULTS: Seventeen of the 19 bAVM (89.5%) detected with DSA were diagnosed with TR-CE-MRA. Interobserver agreement for TR-CE-MRA was good for nidus size, venous drainage, and arterial feeders (K = 0.75, 95% CI 0.50-1.00; K = 0.77, 95% CI 0.54-1.00; and K = 0.80, 95% CI 0.59-1.00 respectively). Intermodality agreement was good for nidus size and venous drainage (K = 0.75, 95% CI 0.49-1.00 and K = 0.77, 95% CI 0.54-1.00, respectively) and moderate for arterial feeders (K = 0.44, 95% CI 0.17-0.70). CONCLUSION: TR-CE-MRA at 3.0 T has a good sensitivity for bAVM detection and good agreement with DSA for determining nidus size and the type of venous drainage, suggesting that TR-CE-MRA is potentially a reliable tool for the diagnosis and assessment of bAVMs. However, it still suffers from low spatial resolution and vessel superposition, making differentiation of the arterial feeders of the nidus difficult at times.
INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted in order to evaluate the value of time-resolved contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (TR-CE-MRA) with a 3.0-T magnetic field compared to digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of brain arteriovenous malformation (bAVM). METHODS: Nineteen patients with 19 angiographically confirmed untreated bAVM were investigated with both DSA and TR-CE-MRA for the initial diagnosis. Examinations were compared by two independent readers. Interobserver agreement and intermodality agreement with respect to nidus size, arterial feeders, and venous drainage were determined using the K statistic test. Also, the quality of the TR-CE-MRA images was evaluated. RESULTS: Seventeen of the 19 bAVM (89.5%) detected with DSA were diagnosed with TR-CE-MRA. Interobserver agreement for TR-CE-MRA was good for nidus size, venous drainage, and arterial feeders (K = 0.75, 95% CI 0.50-1.00; K = 0.77, 95% CI 0.54-1.00; and K = 0.80, 95% CI 0.59-1.00 respectively). Intermodality agreement was good for nidus size and venous drainage (K = 0.75, 95% CI 0.49-1.00 and K = 0.77, 95% CI 0.54-1.00, respectively) and moderate for arterial feeders (K = 0.44, 95% CI 0.17-0.70). CONCLUSION: TR-CE-MRA at 3.0 T has a good sensitivity for bAVM detection and good agreement with DSA for determining nidus size and the type of venous drainage, suggesting that TR-CE-MRA is potentially a reliable tool for the diagnosis and assessment of bAVMs. However, it still suffers from low spatial resolution and vessel superposition, making differentiation of the arterial feeders of the nidus difficult at times.
Authors: Hemant Parmar; Marko K Ivancevic; Nancy Dudek; Dheeraj Gandhi; Liesbeth Geerts; R Hoogeveen; S K Mukherji; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 2.266
Authors: Y Wang; D L Johnston; J F Breen; J Huston; C R Jack; P R Julsrud; M J Kiely; B F King; S L Riederer; R L Ehman Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: George K C Wong; Deyond Y W Siu; Anil T Ahuja; Ann D King; Simon C H Yu; Xian L Zhu; Wai S Poon Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2010-03-12 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Rose Du; Christopher F Dowd; S Clairborne Johnston; William L Young; Michael T Lawton Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Winfried A Willinek; Dariusch R Hadizadeh; Marcus von Falkenhausen; Horst Urbach; R Hoogeveen; Hans H Schild; Jürgen Gieseke Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Christopher S Eddleman; Hyun J Jeong; Michael C Hurley; Sven Zuehlsdorff; Guilherme Dabus; Christopher G Getch; H Hunt Batjer; Bernard R Bendok; Timothy J Carroll Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-05-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Daniel D Cummins; Michael T Caton; Vinil Shah; Karl Meisel; Christine Glastonbury; Matthew R Amans Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 2.486