N Varble1,2, H Rajabzadeh-Oghaz1,2, J Wang3, A Siddiqui2,4, H Meng1,2,4,5, A Mowla6,7. 1. From the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (N.V., H.R.-O., H.M.). 2. Toshiba Stroke and Vascular Research Center (N.V., H.R.-O., A.S., H.M.). 3. Departments of Biostatistics (J.W., A.M.). 4. Neurosurgery (A.S., H.M.). 5. Biomedical Engineering (H.M.). 6. Departments of Biostatistics (J.W., A.M.) mowla_a@yahoo.com. 7. Neurology (A.M.), University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Several recent prospective studies have found that unruptured intracranial aneurysms at various anatomic locations have different propensities for future rupture. This study aims to uncover the lack of understanding regarding rupture-prone characteristics, such as morphology and hemodynamic factors, associated with different intracranial aneurysm location. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated the characteristics of 311 unruptured aneurysms at our center. Based on the PHASES study, we separated and compared morphologic and hemodynamic characteristics among 3 aneurysm location groups: 1) internal carotid artery; 2) middle cerebral artery; and 3) anterior communicating, posterior communicating, and posterior circulation arteries. RESULTS: A mixed model statistical analysis showed that size ratio, low wall shear stress area, and pressure loss coefficient were different between the intracranial aneurysm location groups. In addition, a pair-wise comparison showed that ICA aneurysms had lower size ratios, lower wall shear stress areas, and lower pressure loss coefficients compared with MCA aneurysms and compared with the group of anterior communicating, posterior communicating, and posterior circulation aneurysms. There were no statistical differences between MCA aneurysms and the group of anterior communicating, posterior communicating, and posterior circulation aneurysms for morphologic or hemodynamic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: ICA aneurysms may be subjected to less rupture-prone morphologic and hemodynamic characteristics compared with other locations, which could explain the decreased rupture propensity of intracranial aneurysms at this location.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Several recent prospective studies have found that unruptured intracranial aneurysms at various anatomic locations have different propensities for future rupture. This study aims to uncover the lack of understanding regarding rupture-prone characteristics, such as morphology and hemodynamic factors, associated with different intracranial aneurysm location. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated the characteristics of 311 unruptured aneurysms at our center. Based on the PHASES study, we separated and compared morphologic and hemodynamic characteristics among 3 aneurysm location groups: 1) internal carotid artery; 2) middle cerebral artery; and 3) anterior communicating, posterior communicating, and posterior circulation arteries. RESULTS: A mixed model statistical analysis showed that size ratio, low wall shear stress area, and pressure loss coefficient were different between the intracranial aneurysm location groups. In addition, a pair-wise comparison showed that ICA aneurysms had lower size ratios, lower wall shear stress areas, and lower pressure loss coefficients compared with MCA aneurysms and compared with the group of anterior communicating, posterior communicating, and posterior circulation aneurysms. There were no statistical differences between MCA aneurysms and the group of anterior communicating, posterior communicating, and posterior circulation aneurysms for morphologic or hemodynamic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS:ICA aneurysms may be subjected to less rupture-prone morphologic and hemodynamic characteristics compared with other locations, which could explain the decreased rupture propensity of intracranial aneurysms at this location.
Authors: S Claiborne Johnston; Randall T Higashida; Daniel L Barrow; Louis R Caplan; Jacques E Dion; George Hademenos; L Nelson Hopkins; Andrew Molyneux; Robert H Rosenwasser; Fernando Vinuela; Charles B Wilson Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Daan Backes; Mervyn D I Vergouwen; Birgitta K Velthuis; Irene C van der Schaaf; A Stijntje E Bor; Ale Algra; Gabriel J E Rinkel Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Ning Lin; Allen Ho; Bradley A Gross; Steven Pieper; Kai U Frerichs; Arthur L Day; Rose Du Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: H Rajabzadeh-Oghaz; J Wang; N Varble; S-I Sugiyama; A Shimizu; L Jing; J Liu; X Yang; A H Siddiqui; J M Davies; H Meng Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Sylvia Saalfeld; Philipp Berg; Annika Niemann; Maria Luz; Bernhard Preim; Oliver Beuing Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: James Feghali; Abhishek Gami; Risheng Xu; Christopher M Jackson; Rafael J Tamargo; Cameron G McDougall; Judy Huang; Justin M Caplan Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: K H Narsinh; K Mueller; J Nelson; J Massachi; D C Murph; A Z Copelan; S W Hetts; V V Halbach; R T Higashida; A A Abla; M R Amans; C F Dowd; H Kim; D L Cooke Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: E L Leemans; B M W Cornelissen; C H Slump; C B L M Majoie; J R Cebral; H A Marquering Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 3.825