Petrice M Cogswell1, Taylor L Davis1, Megan K Strother2, Carlos C Faraco1, Allison O Scott1, Lori C Jordan3,4, Matthew R Fusco5, Blaise deB Frederick6, Jeroen Hendrikse7, Manus J Donahue1,4,8. 1. Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 2. DXP-Imaging, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry, McLean Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. 8. Department of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) and CVR lagtimes in flow territories perfused by vessels with vs. without proximal arterial wall disease and/or stenosis, separately in patients with atherosclerotic and nonatherosclerotic (moyamoya) intracranial stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Atherosclerotic and moyamoya patients with >50% intracranial stenosis and <70% cervical stenosis underwent angiography, vessel wall imaging (VWI), and CVR-weighted imaging (n = 36; vessel segments evaluated = 396). Angiography and VWI were evaluated for stenosis locations and vessel wall lesions. Maximum CVR and CVR lagtime were contrasted between vascular territories with and without proximal intracranial vessel wall lesions and stenosis, and a Wilcoxon rank-sum was test used to determine differences (criteria: corrected two-sided P < 0.05). RESULTS: CVR lagtime was prolonged in territories with vs. without a proximal vessel wall lesion or stenosis for both patient groups: moyamoya (CVR lagtime = 45.5 sec ± 14.2 sec vs. 35.7 sec ± 9.7 sec, P < 0.001) and atherosclerosis (CVR lagtime = 38.2 sec ± 9.1 sec vs. 35.0 sec ± 7.2 sec, P = 0.001). For reactivity, a significant decrease in maximum CVR in the moyamoya group only (maximum CVR = 9.8 ± 2.2 vs. 12.0 ± 2.4, P < 0.001) was observed. CONCLUSION: Arterial vessel wall lesions detected on noninvasive, noncontrast intracranial VWI in patients with intracranial stenosis correlate on average with tissue-level impairment on CVR-weighted imaging. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1167-1176.
PURPOSE: To compare cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) and CVR lagtimes in flow territories perfused by vessels with vs. without proximal arterial wall disease and/or stenosis, separately in patients with atherosclerotic and nonatherosclerotic (moyamoya) intracranial stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Atherosclerotic and moyamoya patients with >50% intracranial stenosis and <70% cervical stenosis underwent angiography, vessel wall imaging (VWI), and CVR-weighted imaging (n = 36; vessel segments evaluated = 396). Angiography and VWI were evaluated for stenosis locations and vessel wall lesions. Maximum CVR and CVR lagtime were contrasted between vascular territories with and without proximal intracranial vessel wall lesions and stenosis, and a Wilcoxon rank-sum was test used to determine differences (criteria: corrected two-sided P < 0.05). RESULTS: CVR lagtime was prolonged in territories with vs. without a proximal vessel wall lesion or stenosis for both patient groups: moyamoya (CVR lagtime = 45.5 sec ± 14.2 sec vs. 35.7 sec ± 9.7 sec, P < 0.001) and atherosclerosis (CVR lagtime = 38.2 sec ± 9.1 sec vs. 35.0 sec ± 7.2 sec, P = 0.001). For reactivity, a significant decrease in maximum CVR in the moyamoya group only (maximum CVR = 9.8 ± 2.2 vs. 12.0 ± 2.4, P < 0.001) was observed. CONCLUSION: Arterial vessel wall lesions detected on noninvasive, noncontrast intracranial VWI in patients with intracranial stenosis correlate on average with tissue-level impairment on CVR-weighted imaging. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1167-1176.
Authors: Greg Zaharchuk; Huy M Do; Michael P Marks; Jarrett Rosenberg; Michael E Moseley; Gary K Steinberg Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Anja G van der Kolk; Jaco J M Zwanenburg; Manon Brundel; Geert-Jan Biessels; Fredy Visser; Peter R Luijten; Jeroen Hendrikse Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-07-14 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: W C Little; M Constantinescu; R J Applegate; M A Kutcher; M T Burrows; F R Kahl; W P Santamore Journal: Circulation Date: 1988-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ye Qiao; Steven R Zeiler; Saeedeh Mirbagheri; Richard Leigh; Victor Urrutia; Robert Wityk; Bruce A Wasserman Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Manus J Donahue; Megan K Strother; Kimberly P Lindsey; Lia M Hocke; Yunjie Tong; Blaise deB Frederick Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Brenda R Chen; Mariel G Kozberg; Matthew B Bouchard; Mohammed A Shaik; Elizabeth M C Hillman Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Giovanni Muscas; Christiaan Hendrik Bas van Niftrik; Martina Sebök; Giuseppe Esposito; Luca Regli; Jorn Fierstra Journal: Acta Neurochir Suppl Date: 2021
Authors: David Y T Chen; Yosuke Ishii; Audrey P Fan; Jia Guo; Moss Y Zhao; Gary K Steinberg; Greg Zaharchuk Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Shuai Yuan; Lori C Jordan; Larry T Davis; Petrice M Cogswell; Chelsea A Lee; Niral J Patel; Spencer L Waddle; Meher Juttukonda; R Sky Jones; Allison Griffin; Manus J Donahue Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 6.998