BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Independent evaluation of angiographic images is becoming widely applied in the assessment of treatment outcomes of cerebral aneurysms. In the current study, we assessed the agreement between an independent core laboratory and the operators regarding angiographic appearance in a recent randomized, controlled trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were derived from the Cerecyte Coil Trial. Angiographic images of each coiled aneurysm, taken immediately after embolization and at 5- to 7-month follow-up, were evaluated by the operator at the treating center and by an independent neuroradiologist at the core laboratory. For the purpose of this study, images were interpreted on a 3-point scale to provide uniformity for analysis; grade 1: complete occlusion, grade 2: neck remnant; and grade 3: sac filling. "Unfavorable angiographic appearance" was defined as grade 3 at follow-up or interval worsening of grade between the 2 time points. RESULTS: The study included 434 aneurysms. Immediately after embolization, grade 3 was reported by operators in 39 (9%) compared with 52 (12%) by the core laboratory (P = .159). On follow-up, grade 3 was reported by operators in 44 (10%) compared with 81 (19%) by the core laboratory (P < .0001). Overall, operators noted unfavorable angiographic appearance in 78 (18%) compared with 134 (31%) by the core laboratory (P < .0001). At every time point, agreement between the core laboratory and the operators was slight. CONCLUSIONS:Unfavorable angiographic appearance was noted almost twice as frequently by an independent core laboratory as compared with the operators. Planning of trials and interpretation of published studies should be done with careful attention to the mode of angiographic appearance interpretation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Independent evaluation of angiographic images is becoming widely applied in the assessment of treatment outcomes of cerebral aneurysms. In the current study, we assessed the agreement between an independent core laboratory and the operators regarding angiographic appearance in a recent randomized, controlled trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were derived from the Cerecyte Coil Trial. Angiographic images of each coiled aneurysm, taken immediately after embolization and at 5- to 7-month follow-up, were evaluated by the operator at the treating center and by an independent neuroradiologist at the core laboratory. For the purpose of this study, images were interpreted on a 3-point scale to provide uniformity for analysis; grade 1: complete occlusion, grade 2: neck remnant; and grade 3: sac filling. "Unfavorable angiographic appearance" was defined as grade 3 at follow-up or interval worsening of grade between the 2 time points. RESULTS: The study included 434 aneurysms. Immediately after embolization, grade 3 was reported by operators in 39 (9%) compared with 52 (12%) by the core laboratory (P = .159). On follow-up, grade 3 was reported by operators in 44 (10%) compared with 81 (19%) by the core laboratory (P < .0001). Overall, operators noted unfavorable angiographic appearance in 78 (18%) compared with 134 (31%) by the core laboratory (P < .0001). At every time point, agreement between the core laboratory and the operators was slight. CONCLUSIONS: Unfavorable angiographic appearance was noted almost twice as frequently by an independent core laboratory as compared with the operators. Planning of trials and interpretation of published studies should be done with careful attention to the mode of angiographic appearance interpretation.
Authors: Arun Dahiya; Michael Bolen; Richard A Grimm; L Leonardo Rodriguez; James D Thomas; Thomas H Marwick Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: John Thornton; Gerard M Debrun; Victor A Aletich; Qasim Bashir; Fady T Charbel; James Ausman Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Philip M White; Stephanie C Lewis; Anil Gholkar; Robin J Sellar; Hans Nahser; Christophe Cognard; Lynn Forrester; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-05-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Menno Sluzewski; Willem Jan van Rooij; Marian J Slob; Javier Oliván Bescós; Cornelis H Slump; Douwe Wijnalda Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-04-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jean Raymond; François Guilbert; Alain Weill; Stavros A Georganos; Louis Juravsky; Anick Lambert; Julie Lamoureux; Miguel Chagnon; Daniel Roy Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-05-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Yuichi Murayama; Yih Lin Nien; Gary Duckwiler; Y Pierre Gobin; Reza Jahan; John Frazee; Neil Martin; Fernando Viñuela Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Andrew J Molyneux; Alison Clarke; Mary Sneade; Ziyah Mehta; Stuart Coley; Daniel Roy; David F Kallmes; Allan J Fox Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: M H Schönfeld; V Schlotfeldt; N D Forkert; E Goebell; M Groth; E Vettorazzi; Y D Cho; M H Han; H-S Kang; J Fiehler Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: L Goertz; T Liebig; E Siebert; M Herzberg; L Pennig; M Schlamann; J Borggrefe; B Krischek; F Dorn; C Kabbasch Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: W Brinjikji; P M White; H Nahser; J Wardlaw; R Sellar; H J Cloft; D F Kallmes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J Raymond; R Klink; M Chagnon; S L Barnwell; A J Evans; J Mocco; B L Hoh; A S Turk; R D Turner; H Desal; D Fiorella; S Bracard; A Weill; F Guilbert; D Roy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jacob Cherian; Stephen R Chen; Ajit Puri; Kunal Vakharia; Elad Levy; Sheila Eshraghi; Brian M Howard; Frank C Tong; C Michael Cawley; Bradley Gross; Matthew D Alexander; Ramesh Grandhi; Visish M Srinivasan; Jan-Karl Burkhardt; Jeremiah N Johnson; Peter Kan Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 4.654