C Sandoval-Garcia1, P Yang2, T Schubert3, S Schafer4, S Hetzel5, A Ahmed6, C Strother3. 1. From the Departments of Neurological Surgery (C.S.-G., A.A.) Sandovalgarcia@neurosurgery.wisc.edu. 2. Department of Neurosurgery (P.Y.), Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. 3. Radiology (T.S., C.S.). 4. Siemens Healthineers, USA (S.S.), Hoffman Estates, Illinois. 5. Biostatistics and Medical Informatics (S.H.), University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. 6. From the Departments of Neurological Surgery (C.S.-G., A.A.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 4D-DSA is a time-resolved technique that allows viewing of a contrast bolus at any time and from any desired viewing angle. Our hypothesis was that the information content in a 4D-DSA reconstruction was essentially equivalent to that in a combination of 2D acquisitions and a 3D-DSA reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six consecutive patients who had both 2D- and 3D-DSA acquisitions were included in the study. The angiography report was used to obtain diagnoses and characteristics of abnormalities. Diagnoses included AVM/AVFs, aneurysms, stenosis, and healthy individuals. 4D-DSA reconstructions were independently reviewed by 3 experienced observers who had no part in the clinical care. Using an electronic evaluation form, these observers recorded their assessments based only on the 4D reconstructions. The clinical evaluations were then compared with the 4D evaluations for diagnosis and lesion characteristics. RESULTS: Results showed both interrater and interclass agreements (κ = 0.813 and 0.858). Comparing the 4D diagnosis with the clinical diagnosis for the 3 observers yielded κ values of 0.906, 0.912, and 0.906. The κ values for agreement among the 3 observers for the type of abnormality were 0.949, 0.845, and 0.895. There was complete agreement on the presence of an abnormality between the clinical and 4D-DSA in 23/26 cases. In 2 cases, there were conflicting opinions. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the information content of 4D-DSA reconstructions was largely equivalent to that of the combined 2D/3D studies. The availability of 4D-DSA should reduce the requirement for 2D-DSA acquisitions.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:4D-DSA is a time-resolved technique that allows viewing of a contrast bolus at any time and from any desired viewing angle. Our hypothesis was that the information content in a 4D-DSA reconstruction was essentially equivalent to that in a combination of 2D acquisitions and a 3D-DSA reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six consecutive patients who had both 2D- and 3D-DSA acquisitions were included in the study. The angiography report was used to obtain diagnoses and characteristics of abnormalities. Diagnoses included AVM/AVFs, aneurysms, stenosis, and healthy individuals. 4D-DSA reconstructions were independently reviewed by 3 experienced observers who had no part in the clinical care. Using an electronic evaluation form, these observers recorded their assessments based only on the 4D reconstructions. The clinical evaluations were then compared with the 4D evaluations for diagnosis and lesion characteristics. RESULTS: Results showed both interrater and interclass agreements (κ = 0.813 and 0.858). Comparing the 4D diagnosis with the clinical diagnosis for the 3 observers yielded κ values of 0.906, 0.912, and 0.906. The κ values for agreement among the 3 observers for the type of abnormality were 0.949, 0.845, and 0.895. There was complete agreement on the presence of an abnormality between the clinical and 4D-DSA in 23/26 cases. In 2 cases, there were conflicting opinions. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the information content of 4D-DSA reconstructions was largely equivalent to that of the combined 2D/3D studies. The availability of 4D-DSA should reduce the requirement for 2D-DSA acquisitions.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Carolina Sandoval-Garcia; Kevin Royalty; Pengfei Yang; David Niemann; Azam Ahmed; Beverly Aagaard-Kienitz; Mustafa K Başkaya; Sebastian Schafer; Charles Strother Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2015-01-12 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: B Davis; K Royalty; M Kowarschik; C Rohkohl; E Oberstar; B Aagaard-Kienitz; D Niemann; O Ozkan; C Strother; C Mistretta Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: C Sandoval-Garcia; K Royalty; B Aagaard-Kienitz; S Schafer; P Yang; C Strother Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S Lang; P Hoelter; A I Birkhold; M Schmidt; J Endres; C Strother; A Doerfler; H Luecking Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Aishwarya Raman; Manish Uprety; Maria Jose Calero; Maria Resah B Villanueva; Narges Joshaghani; Nicole Villa; Omar Badla; Raman Goit; Samia E Saddik; Sarah N Dawood; Ahmad M Rabih; Ahmad Mohammed; Tharun Yadhav Selvamani; Jihan Mostafa Journal: Cureus Date: 2022-06-09
Authors: Jay F Yu; Leland Pung; Hataka Minami; Kerstin Mueller; Rajkamal Khangura; Robert Darflinger; Steven W Hetts; Daniel L Cooke Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-09-26 Impact factor: 1.610