BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There are limited studies on the morphologic characteristics of MCA atherosclerotic stenosis. Our aim was to quantitatively assess the remodeling pattern and plaque distribution of atherosclerotic MCAs with 3T high-resolution MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-seven consecutive patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic stenoses at the M1 segment of the MCA on DSA (50%-99%) were enrolled. The remodeling index was calculated as the Vessel Area at Maximal Lumen Narrowing/Reference Vessel Area. A remodeling index ≥ 1.0 was defined as positive remodeling, and a remodeling index < 1.0, as negative remodeling. Plaque distribution at the maximal lumen narrowing site was classified on the basis of the involvement of the superior, inferior, dorsal, or ventral MCA wall. RESULTS: Forty-three of 87 patients were excluded due to poor imaging quality (n = 8) or scan plane obliquity secondary to a tortuous M1 segment of the MCA or an MCA ostium lesion or angled lesion (n = 35). Of 44 patients in the final analysis, negative remodeling was found in 19 (43.2%) lesions, and positive remodeling, in 25 (56.8%) lesions. At maximal lumen narrowing sites, lesions with negative remodeling had less vessel area, wall area, and percentage of plaque burden (P < .0001) and a lower eccentricity index (P = .023), compared with lesions with positive remodeling. The plaque involved the superior and dorsal walls in 15 (34.1%) of 44 patients. CONCLUSIONS: 2D high-resolution MR imaging can help assess the remodeling pattern and plaque distribution of MCA stenosis, but the imaging and postprocessing protocol for remodeling assessment needs to be improved in the tortuous course of the MCA and in MCA ostium or angled lesions.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There are limited studies on the morphologic characteristics of MCA atherosclerotic stenosis. Our aim was to quantitatively assess the remodeling pattern and plaque distribution of atherosclerotic MCAs with 3T high-resolution MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-seven consecutive patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic stenoses at the M1 segment of the MCA on DSA (50%-99%) were enrolled. The remodeling index was calculated as the Vessel Area at Maximal Lumen Narrowing/Reference Vessel Area. A remodeling index ≥ 1.0 was defined as positive remodeling, and a remodeling index < 1.0, as negative remodeling. Plaque distribution at the maximal lumen narrowing site was classified on the basis of the involvement of the superior, inferior, dorsal, or ventral MCA wall. RESULTS: Forty-three of 87 patients were excluded due to poor imaging quality (n = 8) or scan plane obliquity secondary to a tortuous M1 segment of the MCA or an MCA ostium lesion or angled lesion (n = 35). Of 44 patients in the final analysis, negative remodeling was found in 19 (43.2%) lesions, and positive remodeling, in 25 (56.8%) lesions. At maximal lumen narrowing sites, lesions with negative remodeling had less vessel area, wall area, and percentage of plaque burden (P < .0001) and a lower eccentricity index (P = .023), compared with lesions with positive remodeling. The plaque involved the superior and dorsal walls in 15 (34.1%) of 44 patients. CONCLUSIONS: 2D high-resolution MR imaging can help assess the remodeling pattern and plaque distribution of MCA stenosis, but the imaging and postprocessing protocol for remodeling assessment needs to be improved in the tortuous course of the MCA and in MCA ostium or angled lesions.
Authors: P Wexberg; M Gyöngyösi; W Sperker; K Kiss; P Yang; A Hassan; G Pasterkamp; D Glogar Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2000-11-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: M Yamagishi; M Terashima; K Awano; M Kijima; S Nakatani; S Daikoku; K Ito; Y Yasumura; K Miyatake Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: D Aliabadi; F V Tilli; T R Bowers; K H Benzuly; R D Safian; J A Goldstein; C L Grines; W W O'Neill Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1997-10-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: D M Mandell; M Mossa-Basha; Y Qiao; C P Hess; F Hui; C Matouk; M H Johnson; M J A P Daemen; A Vossough; M Edjlali; D Saloner; S A Ansari; B A Wasserman; D J Mikulis Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ju-Yu Chueh; Kajo van der Marel; Matthew J Gounis; Todd LeMatty; Truman R Brown; Sameer A Ansari; Timothy J Carroll; Amanda K Buck; Xiaohong Joe Zhou; A Rano Chatterjee; Robert M King; Hui Mao; Shaokuan Zheng; Olivia W Brooks; Jeff W Rappleye; Richard H Swartz; Edward Feldmann; Tanya N Turan Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Ye Qiao; Zeeshan Anwar; Jarunee Intrapiromkul; Li Liu; Steven R Zeiler; Richard Leigh; Yiyi Zhang; Eliseo Guallar; Bruce A Wasserman Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: N J Lee; M S Chung; S C Jung; H S Kim; C-G Choi; S J Kim; D H Lee; D C Suh; S U Kwon; D-W Kang; J S Kim Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 3.825