BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Local hemodynamic information may help to stratify rupture risk of cerebral aneurysms. Patient-specific modeling of cerebral hemodynamics requires accurate data on BFV in perianeurysmal arteries as boundary conditions for CFD. The aim was to compare the BFV measured with PC-MR imaging with that obtained by using intra-arterial Doppler sonography and to determine interpatient variation in intracranial BFV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 10 patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms, BFV was measured in the cavernous ICA with PC-MR imaging in conscious patients before treatment, and measured by using an intra-arterial Doppler sonography wire when the patient was anesthetized with either propofol (6 patients) or sevoflurane (4 patients). RESULTS: Both techniques identified a pulsatile blood flow pattern in cerebral arteries. PSV differed >50 cm/s between patients. A mean velocity of 41.3 cm/s (95% CI, 39.3-43.3) was measured with PC-MR imaging. With intra-arterial Doppler sonography, a mean velocity of 29.3 cm/s (95% CI, 25.8-32.8) was measured with the patient under propofol-based intravenous anesthesia. In patients under sevoflurane-based inhaled anesthesia, a mean velocity of 44.9 cm/s (95% CI, 40.6-49.3) was measured. CONCLUSIONS: We showed large differences in BFV between patients, emphasizing the importance of using patient-specific hemodynamic boundary conditions in CFD. PC-MR imaging measurements of BFV in conscious patients were comparable with those obtained with the intra-arterial Doppler sonography when the patient was anesthetized with a sevoflurane-based inhaled anesthetic.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Local hemodynamic information may help to stratify rupture risk of cerebral aneurysms. Patient-specific modeling of cerebral hemodynamics requires accurate data on BFV in perianeurysmal arteries as boundary conditions for CFD. The aim was to compare the BFV measured with PC-MR imaging with that obtained by using intra-arterial Doppler sonography and to determine interpatient variation in intracranial BFV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 10 patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms, BFV was measured in the cavernous ICA with PC-MR imaging in conscious patients before treatment, and measured by using an intra-arterial Doppler sonography wire when the patient was anesthetized with either propofol (6 patients) or sevoflurane (4 patients). RESULTS: Both techniques identified a pulsatile blood flow pattern in cerebral arteries. PSV differed >50 cm/s between patients. A mean velocity of 41.3 cm/s (95% CI, 39.3-43.3) was measured with PC-MR imaging. With intra-arterial Doppler sonography, a mean velocity of 29.3 cm/s (95% CI, 25.8-32.8) was measured with the patient under propofol-based intravenous anesthesia. In patients under sevoflurane-based inhaled anesthesia, a mean velocity of 44.9 cm/s (95% CI, 40.6-49.3) was measured. CONCLUSIONS: We showed large differences in BFV between patients, emphasizing the importance of using patient-specific hemodynamic boundary conditions in CFD. PC-MR imaging measurements of BFV in conscious patients were comparable with those obtained with the intra-arterial Doppler sonography when the patient was anesthetized with a sevoflurane-based inhaled anesthetic.
Authors: H Isoda; M Hirano; H Takeda; T Kosugi; M T Alley; M Markl; N J Pelc; H Sakahara Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: W Chang; B Landgraf; K M Johnson; S Kecskemeti; Y Wu; J Velikina; H Rowley; O Wieben; C Mistretta; P Turski Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-10-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A G Radaelli; L Augsburger; J R Cebral; M Ohta; D A Rüfenacht; R Balossino; G Benndorf; D R Hose; A Marzo; R Metcalfe; P Mortier; F Mut; P Reymond; L Socci; B Verhegghe; A F Frangi Journal: J Biomech Date: 2008-06-25 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: S P Ferns; J J Schneiders; M Siebes; R van den Berg; E T van Bavel; C B Majoie Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-09-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Michael Markl; Frandics P Chan; Marcus T Alley; Kris L Wedding; Mary T Draney; Chris J Elkins; David W Parker; Ryan Wicker; Charles A Taylor; Robert J Herfkens; Norbert J Pelc Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: T Schubert; M Pansini; O Bieri; C Stippich; S Wetzel; S Schaedelin; A von Hessling; F Santini Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Y Wu; G Shaughnessy; C A Hoffman; E L Oberstar; S Schafer; T Schubert; K L Ruedinger; B J Davis; C A Mistretta; C M Strother; M A Speidel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: P van Ooij; J J Schneiders; H A Marquering; C B Majoie; E van Bavel; A J Nederveen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J J Schneiders; H A Marquering; P van Ooij; R van den Berg; A J Nederveen; D Verbaan; W P Vandertop; M Pourquie; G J E Rinkel; E vanBavel; C B L M Majoie Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M R Levitt; P M McGah; A Aliseda; P D Mourad; J D Nerva; S S Vaidya; R P Morton; B V Ghodke; L J Kim Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: P M McGah; J D Nerva; R P Morton; M C Barbour; M R Levitt; P D Mourad; L J Kim; A Aliseda Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 2.833
Authors: Patrick M McGah; Michael R Levitt; Michael C Barbour; Ryan P Morton; John D Nerva; Pierre D Mourad; Basavaraj V Ghodke; Danial K Hallam; Laligam N Sekhar; Louis J Kim; Alberto Aliseda Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2013-10-26 Impact factor: 3.934