Chengcheng Zhu1, Xinrui Wang2, Andrew J Degnan3, Zhang Shi2, Bing Tian2, Qi Liu2, Christopher Hess1, David Saloner1, Jianping Lu4. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Radiology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China. cjr.lujianping@vip.163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Aneurysm wall enhancement (AWE) on MRI has been considered an imaging marker to indicate active aneurysm inflammation, but no prospective studies have assessed the ability of AWE to predict rupture risk or growth. We aim to study the association of AWE with traditional risk factors and the estimated rupture risk. METHODS: Seventy-seven patients (mean age, 58.4 ± 10.8 years; 57% female) with 88 asymptomatic intracranial saccular aneurysms underwent both 3-T high-resolution MRI and three-dimensional (3D) rotational digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Geometric and morphologic parameters were measured on DSA, and the degree of AWE on MRI was graded. One- and 5-year rupture risks of aneurysms were estimated using the UCAS and PHASES calculator. Parameters associated with AWE were analyzed using uni- and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Non-internal carotid artery location (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.6-7.1) and aneurysm size (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.7) were independently associated with AWE (p < 0.05). Aneurysms with AWE had significantly higher estimated rupture risk (1 and 5 year, 1.9% and 5.8%) than aneurysms without AWE (0.5% and 2.1%) (p < 0.001). Stronger and larger areas of AWE were correlated with the aneurysm size, size ratio and estimated rupture risk (R2 ≥ 0.30) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective assessment of asymptomatic intracranial aneurysms with MRI suggests that AWE is associated with traditional risk factors and estimated short- and medium-term rupture risk. KEY POINTS: • AWE independently associates with aneurysm location and size. • Aneurysms with AWE have higher rupture risk than aneurysms without AWE. • Stronger and larger areas of AWE correlated with the aneurysm size, size ratio and rupture risk.
OBJECTIVE:Aneurysm wall enhancement (AWE) on MRI has been considered an imaging marker to indicate active aneurysm inflammation, but no prospective studies have assessed the ability of AWE to predict rupture risk or growth. We aim to study the association of AWE with traditional risk factors and the estimated rupture risk. METHODS: Seventy-seven patients (mean age, 58.4 ± 10.8 years; 57% female) with 88 asymptomatic intracranial saccular aneurysms underwent both 3-T high-resolution MRI and three-dimensional (3D) rotational digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Geometric and morphologic parameters were measured on DSA, and the degree of AWE on MRI was graded. One- and 5-year rupture risks of aneurysms were estimated using the UCAS and PHASES calculator. Parameters associated with AWE were analyzed using uni- and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Non-internal carotid artery location (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.6-7.1) and aneurysm size (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.7) were independently associated with AWE (p < 0.05). Aneurysms with AWE had significantly higher estimated rupture risk (1 and 5 year, 1.9% and 5.8%) than aneurysms without AWE (0.5% and 2.1%) (p < 0.001). Stronger and larger areas of AWE were correlated with the aneurysm size, size ratio and estimated rupture risk (R2 ≥ 0.30) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective assessment of asymptomatic intracranial aneurysms with MRI suggests that AWE is associated with traditional risk factors and estimated short- and medium-term rupture risk. KEY POINTS: • AWE independently associates with aneurysm location and size. • Aneurysms with AWE have higher rupture risk than aneurysms without AWE. • Stronger and larger areas of AWE correlated with the aneurysm size, size ratio and rupture risk.
Entities:
Keywords:
Digital subtraction angiography; Gadolinium; Intracranial aneurysm; Magnetic resonance imaging; Risk factor
Authors: Chengcheng Zhu; Henrik Haraldsson; Bing Tian; Karl Meisel; Nerissa Ko; Michael Lawton; John Grinstead; Sinyeob Ahn; Gerhard Laub; Christopher Hess; David Saloner Journal: MAGMA Date: 2016-03-05 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: B Gregory Thompson; Robert D Brown; Sepideh Amin-Hanjani; Joseph P Broderick; Kevin M Cockroft; E Sander Connolly; Gary R Duckwiler; Catherine C Harris; Virginia J Howard; S Claiborne Clay Johnston; Philip M Meyers; Andrew Molyneux; Christopher S Ogilvy; Andrew J Ringer; James Torner Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jacoba P Greving; Marieke J H Wermer; Robert D Brown; Akio Morita; Seppo Juvela; Masahiro Yonekura; Toshihiro Ishibashi; James C Torner; Takeo Nakayama; Gabriël J E Rinkel; Ale Algra Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Maciej J Frączek; Miłosz J Błoński; Kornelia M Kliś; Roger M Krzyżewski; Jarosław Polak; Krzysztof Stachura; Borys M Kwinta Journal: Acta Neurol Belg Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 2.396