OBJECT: The authors conducted a study to compare the sensitivity and specificity of helical CT angiography (CTA) and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in detecting intracranial arterial injuries after penetrating traumatic brain injury (PTBI). METHODS: In a retrospective evaluation of 48 sets of angiograms from 45 consecutive patients with PTBI, 3 readers unaware of the DSA findings reviewed the CTA images to determine the presence or absence of arterial injuries. A fourth reader reviewed all the disagreements and decided among the 3 interpretations. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of CTA were calculated on a per-injury basis and in a subpopulation of patients with traumatic intracranial aneurysms (TICAs). RESULTS: Sensitivity of CTA for detecting arterial injuries was 72.7% (95% CI 49.8%-89.3%); specificity, 93.5% (95% CI 78.6%-99.2%); PPV, 88.9% (95% CI 65.3%-98.6%); and NPV, 82.9% (95% CI 66.4%-93.4%). All 7 TICAs were correctly identified by CTA. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CTA in detecting TICAs were 100%. To compare agreement with DSA, the standard of reference, confidence scores categorized as low, intermediate, and high probability yielded an overall effectiveness of 77.8% (95% CI 71.8%-82.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography angiography had limited overall sensitivity in detecting arterial injuries in patients with PTBI. However, it was accurate in identifying TICAs, a subgroup of injuries usually managed by either surgical or endovascular approaches, and non-TICA injuries involving the first-order branches of intracranial arteries.
OBJECT: The authors conducted a study to compare the sensitivity and specificity of helical CT angiography (CTA) and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in detecting intracranial arterial injuries after penetrating traumatic brain injury (PTBI). METHODS: In a retrospective evaluation of 48 sets of angiograms from 45 consecutive patients with PTBI, 3 readers unaware of the DSA findings reviewed the CTA images to determine the presence or absence of arterial injuries. A fourth reader reviewed all the disagreements and decided among the 3 interpretations. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of CTA were calculated on a per-injury basis and in a subpopulation of patients with traumatic intracranial aneurysms (TICAs). RESULTS: Sensitivity of CTA for detecting arterial injuries was 72.7% (95% CI 49.8%-89.3%); specificity, 93.5% (95% CI 78.6%-99.2%); PPV, 88.9% (95% CI 65.3%-98.6%); and NPV, 82.9% (95% CI 66.4%-93.4%). All 7 TICAs were correctly identified by CTA. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CTA in detecting TICAs were 100%. To compare agreement with DSA, the standard of reference, confidence scores categorized as low, intermediate, and high probability yielded an overall effectiveness of 77.8% (95% CI 71.8%-82.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography angiography had limited overall sensitivity in detecting arterial injuries in patients with PTBI. However, it was accurate in identifying TICAs, a subgroup of injuries usually managed by either surgical or endovascular approaches, and non-TICA injuries involving the first-order branches of intracranial arteries.
Authors: Andrea Loggini; Tareq Kass-Hout; Issam A Awad; Faten El Ammar; Christopher L Kramer; Fernando D Goldenberg; Christos Lazaridis; Ali Mansour Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Fakhry M Dawoud; Michael J Feldman; Aaron M Yengo-Kahn; Steven G Roth; Daniel I Wolfson; Ranbir Ahluwalia; Patrick D Kelly; Rohan V Chitale Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Ali Mansour; Andrea Loggini; Faten El Ammar; Daniel Ginat; Issam A Awad; Christos Lazaridis; Christopher Kramer; Valentina Vasenina; Sean P Polster; Anna Huang; Henry Olivera Perez; Paramita Das; Peleg M Horowitz; Tanya Zakrison; David Hampton; Selwyn O Rogers; Fernando D Goldenberg Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 3.532