S R Boddu1, F C Tong2, S Dehkharghani3, J E Dion2, A M Saindane3. 1. From the Departments of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (S.R.B., F.C.T., S.D., J.E.D., A.M.S.) sboddu6@gmail.com. 2. From the Departments of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (S.R.B., F.C.T., S.D., J.E.D., A.M.S.) Neurological Surgery (F.C.T., J.E.D.), Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. From the Departments of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (S.R.B., F.C.T., S.D., J.E.D., A.M.S.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular reconstruction and flow diversion by using the Pipeline Embolization Device is an effective treatment for complex cerebral aneurysms. Accurate noninvasive alternatives to DSA for follow-up after Pipeline Embolization Device treatment are desirable. This study evaluated the accuracy of contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA for this purpose, hypothesizing that contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA will be comparable with DSA and superior to 3D-TOF MRA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a 24-month period, 37 Pipeline Embolization Device-treated intracranial aneurysms in 26 patients underwent initial follow-up by using 3D-TOF MRA, contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA, and DSA. MRA was performed on a 1.5T unit by using 3D-TOF and time-resolved imaging of contrast kinetics. All patients underwent DSA a median of 0 days (range, 0-68) after MRA. Studies were evaluated for aneurysm occlusion, quality of visualization of the reconstructed artery, and measurable luminal diameter of the Pipeline Embolization Device, with DSA used as the reference standard. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA relative to DSA for posttreatment aneurysm occlusion were 96%, 85%, 92%, and 92%. Contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA demonstrated superior quality of visualization (P = .0001) and a higher measurable luminal diameter (P = .0001) of the reconstructed artery compared with 3D-TOF MRA but no significant difference compared with DSA. Contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA underestimated the luminal diameter of the reconstructed artery by 0.965 ± 0.497 mm (27% ± 13%) relative to DSA. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA is a reliable noninvasive method for monitoring intracranial aneurysms following flow diversion and vessel reconstruction by using the Pipeline Embolization Device.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular reconstruction and flow diversion by using the Pipeline Embolization Device is an effective treatment for complex cerebral aneurysms. Accurate noninvasive alternatives to DSA for follow-up after Pipeline Embolization Device treatment are desirable. This study evaluated the accuracy of contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA for this purpose, hypothesizing that contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA will be comparable with DSA and superior to 3D-TOF MRA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a 24-month period, 37 Pipeline Embolization Device-treated intracranial aneurysms in 26 patients underwent initial follow-up by using 3D-TOF MRA, contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA, and DSA. MRA was performed on a 1.5T unit by using 3D-TOF and time-resolved imaging of contrast kinetics. All patients underwent DSA a median of 0 days (range, 0-68) after MRA. Studies were evaluated for aneurysm occlusion, quality of visualization of the reconstructed artery, and measurable luminal diameter of the Pipeline Embolization Device, with DSA used as the reference standard. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA relative to DSA for posttreatment aneurysm occlusion were 96%, 85%, 92%, and 92%. Contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA demonstrated superior quality of visualization (P = .0001) and a higher measurable luminal diameter (P = .0001) of the reconstructed artery compared with 3D-TOF MRA but no significant difference compared with DSA. Contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA underestimated the luminal diameter of the reconstructed artery by 0.965 ± 0.497 mm (27% ± 13%) relative to DSA. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA is a reliable noninvasive method for monitoring intracranial aneurysms following flow diversion and vessel reconstruction by using the Pipeline Embolization Device.
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: Melanie B Blum; Maria Schmook; Rüdiger Schernthaner; Gundula Edelhauser; Stefan Puchner; Johannes Lammer; Martin A Funovics Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Tibor Becske; David F Kallmes; Isil Saatci; Cameron G McDougall; István Szikora; Giuseppe Lanzino; Christopher J Moran; Henry H Woo; Demetrius K Lopes; Aaron L Berez; Daniel J Cher; Adnan H Siddiqui; Elad I Levy; Felipe C Albuquerque; David J Fiorella; Zsolt Berentei; Miklós Marosfoi; Saruhan H Cekirge; Peter K Nelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-15 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: Georgios Kapsas; Caterina Budai; Francesco Toni; Francesco Patruno; Anna Federica Marliani; Marco Leonardi; Luigi Cirillo Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: N Adeeb; J M Moore; M Wirtz; C J Griessenauer; P M Foreman; H Shallwani; R Gupta; A A Dmytriw; R Motiei-Langroudi; A Alturki; M R Harrigan; A H Siddiqui; E I Levy; A J Thomas; C S Ogilvy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: T P Madaelil; J A Grossberg; B M Howard; C M Cawley; J Dion; R G Nogueira; D C Haussen; F C Tong Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: H Oishi; T Fujii; M Suzuki; N Takano; K Teranishi; K Yatomi; T Kitamura; M Yamamoto; S Aoki; H Arai Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: N Takano; M Suzuki; R Irie; M Yamamoto; K Teranishi; K Yatomi; N Hamasaki; K K Kumamaru; M Hori; H Oishi; S Aoki Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: D Atasoy; N Kandasamy; J Hart; J Lynch; S-H Yang; D Walsh; C Tolias; T C Booth Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J Burel; E Gerardin; M Vannier; A Curado; M Verdalle-Cazes; N Magne; M Lefebvre; C Papagiannaki Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 3.825