Vivek Yedavalli1,2, Steffen Sammet2. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, Chicago, IL. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intra-arterial recanalization postprocedural imaging in stroke patients can result in diagnostic complications due to hyperdensities on noncontrast computed tomography (CT), which may represent either contrast extravasation or intracranial hemorrhage. If these lesions are hemorrhage, then they are risk factors becoming symptomatic, which, if not distinguished, can alter clinical management. We investigate the effects of iodinated contrast on postprocedural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prevalence of equivocal imaging interpretations of postprocedural extravasated contrast versus hemorrhage while identifying protocol pitfalls. METHODS: We identified 10 patients diagnosed with ischemic stroke who underwent intra-arterial recanalization in a 5-year period. These patients demonstrated a hyperdensity on a postprocedural CT within 24 hours, underwent an MRI within 48 hours, and an additional confirmatory noncontrast CT at least 72 hours postprocedure. RESULTS: Postprocedural MRI in all 10 stroke patients demonstrated T1 - and T2 -relaxation time changes due to residual iodine contrast agents. This lead to false positive postprocedural hemorrhage MRI interpretations in 2/10 patients, 3/10 false negative interpretations of contrast extravasation, and 5/10 equivocal interpretations suggesting extravasation or hemorrhage. Of these five cases, two were performed with gadolinium. CONCLUSION: MRI done within 48 hours postprocedure can lead to false positive hemorrhage or false negative contrast extravasation interpretations in stroke patients possibly due to effects from the administered angiographic contrast. Additionally, MRI should be done both after 72 hours for confirmation and without gadolinium contrast as the effects of the gadolinium contrast and residual angiographic contrast could lead to misdiagnosis.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intra-arterial recanalization postprocedural imaging in strokepatients can result in diagnostic complications due to hyperdensities on noncontrast computed tomography (CT), which may represent either contrast extravasation or intracranial hemorrhage. If these lesions are hemorrhage, then they are risk factors becoming symptomatic, which, if not distinguished, can alter clinical management. We investigate the effects of iodinated contrast on postprocedural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prevalence of equivocal imaging interpretations of postprocedural extravasated contrast versus hemorrhage while identifying protocol pitfalls. METHODS: We identified 10 patients diagnosed with ischemic stroke who underwent intra-arterial recanalization in a 5-year period. These patients demonstrated a hyperdensity on a postprocedural CT within 24 hours, underwent an MRI within 48 hours, and an additional confirmatory noncontrast CT at least 72 hours postprocedure. RESULTS: Postprocedural MRI in all 10 strokepatients demonstrated T1 - and T2 -relaxation time changes due to residual iodine contrast agents. This lead to false positive postprocedural hemorrhage MRI interpretations in 2/10 patients, 3/10 false negative interpretations of contrast extravasation, and 5/10 equivocal interpretations suggesting extravasation or hemorrhage. Of these five cases, two were performed with gadolinium. CONCLUSION: MRI done within 48 hours postprocedure can lead to false positive hemorrhage or false negative contrast extravasation interpretations in strokepatients possibly due to effects from the administered angiographic contrast. Additionally, MRI should be done both after 72 hours for confirmation and without gadolinium contrast as the effects of the gadolinium contrast and residual angiographic contrast could lead to misdiagnosis.
Authors: Ravi K Kaza; Joel F Platt; Richard H Cohan; Elaine M Caoili; Mahmoud M Al-Hawary; Ashish Wasnik Journal: Radiographics Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Nicole S Yin; Sebastian Benavides; Sidney Starkman; David S Liebeskind; Jeffrey A Saver; Noriko Salamon; Reza Jahan; Gary R Duckwiler; Satoshi Tateshima; Fernando Vinuela; Paul M Vespa; Dennis J Chute; Harry V Vinters Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-04-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: N Lummel; G Schulte-Altedorneburg; C Bernau; T Pfefferkorn; M Patzig; H Janssen; C Opherk; H Brückmann; J Linn Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: D Byrne; J P Walsh; H Schmiedeskamp; F Settecase; M K S Heran; B Niu; A K Salmeen; B Rohr; T S Field; N Murray; A Rohr Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Marie Louise E Bernsen; Peter B Veendrick; Jasper M Martens; Milan E J Pijl; Jeannette Hofmeijer; Maarten J van Gorp Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Ronda Lun; Gregory B Walker; Adrien Guenego; Mohammed Kassab; Eduardo Portela; Vignan Yogendrakumar; George Medvedev; Ken Wong; Michel Shamy; Dar Dowlatshahi; Robert Fahed Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 4.003