OBJECTIVE: : Identification of aneurysms at risk for rupture is important and challenging. We sought to evaluate if intracranial vessel wall (IVW) imaging characteristics of unruptured aneurysms correlate with clinical risk factors for rupture. METHODS: : Patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms were prospectively recruited and underwent a multi contrast 3D IVW protocol between April 6, 2016 and August 29, 2017. Two independent raters, blinded to aneurysm vulnerability, evaluated each aneurysm for wall enhancement, extent of enhancement in terms of the numbers of quadrants enhancing circumferentially, intensity of enhancement, and qualitative wall thinning. PHASES score was calculated for each aneurysm. Univariate logistic regression analysis was used to compare IVW characteristics between aneurysms at higher clinical risk for rupture (PHASES score > 3) and lower clinical risk for rupture (PHASES score ≤ 3). RESULTS: : 45 patients with 65 unruptured aneurysms were analyzed; 38 aneurysms with PHASES score > 3 (58%) and 27 aneurysms with PHASES score ≤ 3 (42%). Aneurysms with PHASES score > 3 were more likely to demonstrate enhancement (42.1% vs 14.8%, p = 0.022), greater extent of enhancement (mean: 2.9 vs 2.2 quadrants, p = 0.063), and wall thinning (9.2% vs 0%, p = 0.044). Inter-reader agreement was moderate-to-good for the presence (κ = 0.64), extent (κ = 0.64), and intensity of enhancement (κ = 0.60) but relatively low for wall thinning (κ = 0.25). CONCLUSION: : Aneurysms at higher risk of rupture by PHASES score are more likely to demonstrate wall enhancement, more diffuse enhancement, and wall thinning on IVW. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: This study prospectively compares IVW-detected wall enhancement and thinning between unruptured aneurysms stratified into high and low risk groups by clinical scores (PHASES) of vulnerability.
OBJECTIVE: : Identification of aneurysms at risk for rupture is important and challenging. We sought to evaluate if intracranial vessel wall (IVW) imaging characteristics of unruptured aneurysms correlate with clinical risk factors for rupture. METHODS: : Patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms were prospectively recruited and underwent a multi contrast 3D IVW protocol between April 6, 2016 and August 29, 2017. Two independent raters, blinded to aneurysm vulnerability, evaluated each aneurysm for wall enhancement, extent of enhancement in terms of the numbers of quadrants enhancing circumferentially, intensity of enhancement, and qualitative wall thinning. PHASES score was calculated for each aneurysm. Univariate logistic regression analysis was used to compare IVW characteristics between aneurysms at higher clinical risk for rupture (PHASES score > 3) and lower clinical risk for rupture (PHASES score ≤ 3). RESULTS: : 45 patients with 65 unruptured aneurysms were analyzed; 38 aneurysms with PHASES score > 3 (58%) and 27 aneurysms with PHASES score ≤ 3 (42%). Aneurysms with PHASES score > 3 were more likely to demonstrate enhancement (42.1% vs 14.8%, p = 0.022), greater extent of enhancement (mean: 2.9 vs 2.2 quadrants, p = 0.063), and wall thinning (9.2% vs 0%, p = 0.044). Inter-reader agreement was moderate-to-good for the presence (κ = 0.64), extent (κ = 0.64), and intensity of enhancement (κ = 0.60) but relatively low for wall thinning (κ = 0.25). CONCLUSION: : Aneurysms at higher risk of rupture by PHASES score are more likely to demonstrate wall enhancement, more diffuse enhancement, and wall thinning on IVW. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: This study prospectively compares IVW-detected wall enhancement and thinning between unruptured aneurysms stratified into high and low risk groups by clinical scores (PHASES) of vulnerability.
Authors: Ye Qiao; David A Steinman; Qin Qin; Maryam Etesami; Michael Schär; Brad C Astor; Bruce A Wasserman Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Anthony Portanova; Niloofar Hakakian; David J Mikulis; Renu Virmani; Wael M A Abdalla; Bruce A Wasserman Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M Mossa-Basha; C Zhu; C Yuan; L Saba; D A Saloner; M Edjlali; N V Stence; D M Mandell; J M Romero; Y Qiao; D J Mikulis; B A Wasserman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Jorge A Roa; Mario Zanaty; Daizo Ishii; Yongjun Lu; David K Kung; Robert M Starke; James C Torner; Pascal M Jabbour; Edgar A Samaniego; David M Hasan Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Basar Sarikaya; Charles Colip; William D Hwang; Daniel S Hippe; Chengcheng Zhu; Jie Sun; Niranjan Balu; Chun Yuan; Mahmud Mossa-Basha Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Tuula Peñate Medina; Jan Philip Kolb; Gereon Hüttmann; Robert Huber; Oula Peñate Medina; Linh Ha; Patricia Ulloa; Naomi Larsen; Arianna Ferrari; Magdalena Rafecas; Mark Ellrichmann; Mariya S Pravdivtseva; Mariia Anikeeva; Jana Humbert; Marcus Both; Jennifer E Hundt; Jan-Bernd Hövener Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: S Hadad; F Mut; B J Chung; J A Roa; A M Robertson; D M Hasan; E A Samaniego; J R Cebral Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 3.825