A Rouchaud1, W Brinjikji2, T Gunderson3, J Caroff4, J-C Gentric5, G Lanzino6, H J Cloft6, D F Kallmes6. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (A.R., W.B., G.L., H.J.C., D.F.K.) Department of Interventional Neuroradiology (A.R., J.C.), Bicetre Hospital, Clichy, France aymeric.rouchaud@gmail.com Rouchaud.Aymeric@mayo.edu. 2. From the Departments of Radiology (A.R., W.B., G.L., H.J.C., D.F.K.). 3. Health Sciences Research, Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics (T.G.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Department of Interventional Neuroradiology (A.R., J.C.), Bicetre Hospital, Clichy, France. 5. Department of Interventional Neuroradiology (J.-C.G.), Notre-Dame Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Department of Interventional Neuroradiology (J.-C.G.), CHU Cavale Blanche, Brest, France. 6. From the Departments of Radiology (A.R., W.B., G.L., H.J.C., D.F.K.) Neurosurgery (G.L., H.J.C., D.F.K.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Both the Meyer and Raymond scales are commonly used to report angiographic outcomes following coil embolization of intracranial aneurysms. The objectives of this study were the following: 1) to assess the interobserver agreement of the Meyer and Raymond scales, and 2) to evaluate and compare their performance in predicting major recurrence at follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective series of 120 coiled aneurysms was included. Four investigators independently graded DSA images immediately posttreatment and at follow-up according to the Meyer and Raymond scales. On follow-up DSA, readers also evaluated recurrence outcome. Interobserver agreement was assessed via the intraclass correlation coefficient. The ability of posttreatment Meyer and Raymond scales to predict major recurrence was modeled by using logistic regression and assessed by using receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: For the Meyer scale, interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.58 (95% CI, 0.46-0.68) on posttreatment and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.72-0.83) on follow-up evaluations. For the Raymond scale, interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.50 (95% CI, 0.39-0.61) and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.62-0.76), respectively, for posttreatment and follow-up. The areas under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic analyses regarding the performance to predict major recurrence at follow-up were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.60-0.79) for the Meyer and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.61-0.78) for the Raymond scale. CONCLUSIONS: The Meyer scale appears consistent and reliable with observer agreement as high or higher than that of the Raymond scale. Performance of both scales in predicting the risk of major recurrence at follow-up is adequate, with no statistical difference between the scales.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Both the Meyer and Raymond scales are commonly used to report angiographic outcomes following coil embolization of intracranial aneurysms. The objectives of this study were the following: 1) to assess the interobserver agreement of the Meyer and Raymond scales, and 2) to evaluate and compare their performance in predicting major recurrence at follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective series of 120 coiled aneurysms was included. Four investigators independently graded DSA images immediately posttreatment and at follow-up according to the Meyer and Raymond scales. On follow-up DSA, readers also evaluated recurrence outcome. Interobserver agreement was assessed via the intraclass correlation coefficient. The ability of posttreatment Meyer and Raymond scales to predict major recurrence was modeled by using logistic regression and assessed by using receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: For the Meyer scale, interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.58 (95% CI, 0.46-0.68) on posttreatment and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.72-0.83) on follow-up evaluations. For the Raymond scale, interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.50 (95% CI, 0.39-0.61) and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.62-0.76), respectively, for posttreatment and follow-up. The areas under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic analyses regarding the performance to predict major recurrence at follow-up were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.60-0.79) for the Meyer and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.61-0.78) for the Raymond scale. CONCLUSIONS: The Meyer scale appears consistent and reliable with observer agreement as high or higher than that of the Raymond scale. Performance of both scales in predicting the risk of major recurrence at follow-up is adequate, with no statistical difference between the scales.
Authors: Philip M Meyers; H Christian Schumacher; Randall T Higashida; Colin P Derdeyn; Gary M Nesbit; David Sacks; Lawrence R Wechsler; Joshua B Bederson; Sean D Lavine; Peter Rasmussen Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.464
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: Christopher S Ogilvy; Michelle H Chua; Matthew R Fusco; Christoph J Griessenauer; Mark R Harrigan; Ashish Sonig; Adnan H Siddiqui; Elad I Levy; Kenneth Snyder; Michael Avery; Alim Mitha; Jorma Shores; Brian L Hoh; Ajith J Thomas Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Waleed Brinjikji; Ravi K Lingineni; Chris N Gu; Giuseppe Lanzino; Harry J Cloft; Lauren Ulsh; Kristen Koeller; David F Kallmes Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Philip M Meyers; H Christian Schumacher; Randall T Higashida; Colin P Derdeyn; Gary M Nesbit; David Sacks; Lawrence R Wechsler; Joshua B Bederson; Sean D Lavine; Peter Rasmussen Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: J S McDonald; R E Carter; K F Layton; J Mocco; J B Madigan; R G Tawk; R A Hanel; S S Roy; H J Cloft; A M Klunder; S H Suh; D F Kallmes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 3.825
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: H Urbach; U Dorenbeck; M von Falkenhausen; K Wilhelm; W Willinek; C Schaller; S Flacke Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.804