BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by flow diverter with MRI is complicated by imaging artifacts produced by these devices. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography (3D-TOF-MRA) and contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) at 3 T for the evaluation of aneurysm occlusion and parent artery patency after flow diversion treatment, with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated with flow diverters between January 2009 and January 2013 followed by MRA at 3 T (3D-TOF-MRA and CE-MRA) and DSA within a 48 h period were included in a prospective single-center study. Aneurysm occlusion was assessed with full and simplified Montreal scales and parent artery patency with three-grade and two-grade scales. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients harboring 23 treated aneurysms were included. Interobserver agreement using simplified scales for occlusion (Montreal) and parent artery patency were higher for DSA (0.88 and 0.61) and CE-MRA (0.74 and 0.55) than for 3D-TOF-MRA (0.51 and 0.02). Intermodality agreement was higher for CE-MRA (0.88 and 0.32) than for 3D-TOF-MRA (0.59 and 0.11). CE-MRA yielded better accuracy than 3D-TOF-MRA for aneurysm remnant detection (sensitivity 83% vs 50%; specificity 100% vs 100%) and for the status of the parent artery (specificity 63% vs 32%; sensitivity 100% vs 100%). CONCLUSIONS: At 3 T, CE-MRA is superior to 3D-TOF-MRA for the evaluation of aneurysm occlusion and parent artery patency after flow diversion treatment. However, intraluminal evaluation remains difficult with MRA regardless of the sequence used. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by flow diverter with MRI is complicated by imaging artifacts produced by these devices. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography (3D-TOF-MRA) and contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) at 3 T for the evaluation of aneurysm occlusion and parent artery patency after flow diversion treatment, with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients treated with flow diverters between January 2009 and January 2013 followed by MRA at 3 T (3D-TOF-MRA and CE-MRA) and DSA within a 48 h period were included in a prospective single-center study. Aneurysm occlusion was assessed with full and simplified Montreal scales and parent artery patency with three-grade and two-grade scales. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients harboring 23 treated aneurysms were included. Interobserver agreement using simplified scales for occlusion (Montreal) and parent artery patency were higher for DSA (0.88 and 0.61) and CE-MRA (0.74 and 0.55) than for 3D-TOF-MRA (0.51 and 0.02). Intermodality agreement was higher for CE-MRA (0.88 and 0.32) than for 3D-TOF-MRA (0.59 and 0.11). CE-MRA yielded better accuracy than 3D-TOF-MRA for aneurysm remnant detection (sensitivity 83% vs 50%; specificity 100% vs 100%) and for the status of the parent artery (specificity 63% vs 32%; sensitivity 100% vs 100%). CONCLUSIONS: At 3 T, CE-MRA is superior to 3D-TOF-MRA for the evaluation of aneurysm occlusion and parent artery patency after flow diversion treatment. However, intraluminal evaluation remains difficult with MRA regardless of the sequence used. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Entities:
Keywords:
Aneurysm; Flow Diverter; Magnetic Resonance Angiography
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: 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: H Luecking; T Engelhorn; S Lang; P Goelitz; S Kloska; K Roessler; A Doerfler Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: T Su; P Reymond; O Brina; P Bouillot; P Machi; B M A Delattre; L Jin; K O Lövblad; M I Vargas Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-02-13 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