OBJECTIVES: To compare 3D-TOF magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) sequences at 3T in the follow-up of coiled aneurysms with digital subtracted angiography (DSA) as the gold standard. METHODS: DSA, 3D-TOF and CE-MRA were performed in a prospective series of 126 aneurysms in 96 patients (57 female, 39 male; age: 25-75 years, mean: 51.3 ± 11.3 years). The quality of aneurysm occlusion was assessed independently and anonymously by a core laboratory. RESULTS: Using DSA (gold standard technique), total occlusion was depicted in 57 aneurysms (45.2%), neck remnant in 34 aneurysms (27.0%) and aneurysm remnant in 35 aneurysms (27.8%). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were very similar with 3D-TOF and CE-MRA. Visibility of coils was much better with 3D-TOF (95.2%) than with CE-MRA (23.0%) (P < 0.001). Also, substantial artefacts were less frequent with 3D-TOF (4.0%) than with CE-MRA (11.9%; P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective series of patients with coiled aneurysms, at 3T 3D-TOF MRA was equivalent to CE-MRA for the evaluation of aneurysm occlusion, but coil visibility was superior at 3D-TOF. Thus the use of 3D-TOF at 3T is recommended for the follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms. KEY POINTS: • Different Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging techniques are used to evaluate intracranial aneurysms. • At 3T MR, 3D-TOF and CE-MRA appear equivalent for evaluating coiled aneurysms.. • Coils are better visualised on 3D-TOF than on CE-MRA. • Combined analysis of 3D-TOF and CE-MRA does not seem helpful. • At 3T, 3D-TOF techniques are recommended for monitoring patients with coiled aneurysms.
OBJECTIVES: To compare 3D-TOF magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) sequences at 3T in the follow-up of coiled aneurysms with digital subtracted angiography (DSA) as the gold standard. METHODS:DSA, 3D-TOF and CE-MRA were performed in a prospective series of 126 aneurysms in 96 patients (57 female, 39 male; age: 25-75 years, mean: 51.3 ± 11.3 years). The quality of aneurysm occlusion was assessed independently and anonymously by a core laboratory. RESULTS: Using DSA (gold standard technique), total occlusion was depicted in 57 aneurysms (45.2%), neck remnant in 34 aneurysms (27.0%) and aneurysm remnant in 35 aneurysms (27.8%). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were very similar with 3D-TOF and CE-MRA. Visibility of coils was much better with 3D-TOF (95.2%) than with CE-MRA (23.0%) (P < 0.001). Also, substantial artefacts were less frequent with 3D-TOF (4.0%) than with CE-MRA (11.9%; P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective series of patients with coiled aneurysms, at 3T 3D-TOF MRA was equivalent to CE-MRA for the evaluation of aneurysm occlusion, but coil visibility was superior at 3D-TOF. Thus the use of 3D-TOF at 3T is recommended for the follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms. KEY POINTS: • Different Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging techniques are used to evaluate intracranial aneurysms. • At 3T MR, 3D-TOF and CE-MRA appear equivalent for evaluating coiled aneurysms.. • Coils are better visualised on 3D-TOF than on CE-MRA. • Combined analysis of 3D-TOF and CE-MRA does not seem helpful. • At 3T, 3D-TOF techniques are recommended for monitoring patients with coiled aneurysms.
Authors: Joanna D Schaafsma; Birgitta K Velthuis; Charles B L M Majoie; René van den Berg; Patrick A Brouwer; Frederik Barkhof; Omid Eshghi; Gerard A P de Kort; Rob T H Lo; Theo D Witkamp; Marieke E S Sprengers; Marianne A van Walderveen; Joseph C Bot; Esther Sanchez; W Peter Vandertop; Jan van Gijn; Erik Buskens; Yolanda van der Graaf; Gabriël J E Rinkel Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Timothy J Kaufmann; John Huston; Jay N Mandrekar; Cathy D Schleck; Kent R Thielen; David F Kallmes Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: S Claiborne Johnston; Christopher F Dowd; Randall T Higashida; Michael T Lawton; Gary R Duckwiler; Daryl R Gress Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-11-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Sandra P Ferns; Marieke E S Sprengers; Willem Jan van Rooij; Gabriël J E Rinkel; Jeroen C van Rijn; Shandra Bipat; Menno Sluzewski; Charles B L M Majoie Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-06-11 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: B Lubicz; J Klisch; J-Y Gauvrit; I Szikora; M Leonardi; T Liebig; N P Nuzzi; E Boccardi; F D Paola; M Holtmannspötter; W Weber; E Calgliari; V Sychra; B Mine; L Pierot Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: L Pierot; J Klisch; T Liebig; J-Y Gauvrit; M Leonardi; N P Nuzzi; F Di Paola; V Sychra; B Mine; B Lubicz Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Sbt van Rooij; J P Peluso; M Sluzewski; H G Kortman; I Boukrab; W J van Rooij Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 1.610