PURPOSE: Conventional intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography, which requires surgical exposure and ligation of the femoral or carotid artery, is a limited method of evaluating elastase-induced aneurysms in New Zealand white rabbits. The purpose of this study was to assess aneurysm morphology, occlusion rates and complications after flow diverter treatment comparing intravenous and intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography. METHODS: We previously published a preclinical study in which we evaluated the occlusion rates of elastase-induced aneurysms after treatment with a prototype flow diverter, by using intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography at three months ( n = 9) and six months ( n = 9). In addition to that intravenous digital subtraction angiography before treatment, after one month (early follow-up group) and after three months (late follow-up group) was performed. Occlusion rates were compared within the two groups by means of residual contrast filling. RESULTS: Baseline aneurysm characteristics revealed no significant differences between intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography and intravenous digital subtraction angiography. Aneurysm occlusion rates in both follow-up groups using intravenous digital subtraction angiography were significantly higher compared to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (early follow-up group: intravenous digital subtraction angiography (one month) versus intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (three months); p = 0.03 and late follow-up group: intravenous digital subtraction angiography (three months) versus intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (six months); p = 0.04). Intravenous digital subtraction angiography is feasible to detect and reproduce device occlusions, in-stent stenosis and post-stent stenosis. CONCLUSION: Intravenous digital subtraction angiography can not give a sufficient statement on the aneurysm occlusion process compared to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography and is therefore not recommended for imaging follow-up after flow diverter treatment in rabbits. Regarding untreated aneurysms and complications like device occlusions, in-stent stenosis and post-stent stenosis intravenous digital subtraction angiography proofed to be a good alternative to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography in our study.
PURPOSE: Conventional intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography, which requires surgical exposure and ligation of the femoral or carotid artery, is a limited method of evaluating elastase-induced aneurysms in New Zealand white rabbits. The purpose of this study was to assess aneurysm morphology, occlusion rates and complications after flow diverter treatment comparing intravenous and intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography. METHODS: We previously published a preclinical study in which we evaluated the occlusion rates of elastase-induced aneurysms after treatment with a prototype flow diverter, by using intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography at three months ( n = 9) and six months ( n = 9). In addition to that intravenous digital subtraction angiography before treatment, after one month (early follow-up group) and after three months (late follow-up group) was performed. Occlusion rates were compared within the two groups by means of residual contrast filling. RESULTS: Baseline aneurysm characteristics revealed no significant differences between intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography and intravenous digital subtraction angiography. Aneurysm occlusion rates in both follow-up groups using intravenous digital subtraction angiography were significantly higher compared to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (early follow-up group: intravenous digital subtraction angiography (one month) versus intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (three months); p = 0.03 and late follow-up group: intravenous digital subtraction angiography (three months) versus intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (six months); p = 0.04). Intravenous digital subtraction angiography is feasible to detect and reproduce device occlusions, in-stent stenosis and post-stent stenosis. CONCLUSION: Intravenous digital subtraction angiography can not give a sufficient statement on the aneurysm occlusion process compared to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography and is therefore not recommended for imaging follow-up after flow diverter treatment in rabbits. Regarding untreated aneurysms and complications like device occlusions, in-stent stenosis and post-stent stenosis intravenous digital subtraction angiography proofed to be a good alternative to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography in our study.
Entities:
Keywords:
Animal studies; aneurysm; digital subtraction angiography; flow diverter
Authors: Santosh B Murthy; Shreyansh Shah; Aditi Shastri; Chethan P Venkatasubba Rao; Eric M Bershad; Jose I Suarez Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2013-10-13 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: H J Cloft; T A Altes; W F Marx; R J Raible; S B Hudson; G A Helm; J W Mandell; M E Jensen; J E Dion; D F Kallmes Journal: Radiology Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yong Hong Ding; Daying Dai; Debra A Lewis; Mark A Danielson; Ramanathan Kadirvel; Jayawant N Mandrekar; Harry J Cloft; David F Kallmes Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2005-08-25 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Tibor Becske; David F Kallmes; Isil Saatci; Cameron G McDougall; István Szikora; Giuseppe Lanzino; Christopher J Moran; Henry H Woo; Demetrius K Lopes; Aaron L Berez; Daniel J Cher; Adnan H Siddiqui; Elad I Levy; Felipe C Albuquerque; David J Fiorella; Zsolt Berentei; Miklós Marosfoi; Saruhan H Cekirge; Peter K Nelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David F Kallmes; Yong Hong Ding; Daying Dai; Ramanathan Kadirvel; Debra A Lewis; Harry J Cloft Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-07-05 Impact factor: 7.914