A S Larson1,2, V T Lehman3, G Lanzino3,2, W Brinjikji1,2. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (A.S.L., V.T.L., G.L., W.B.) Brinjikji.Waleed@mayo.edu. 2. Neurosurgery (A.S.L., G.L., W.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. From the Departments of Radiology (A.S.L., V.T.L., G.L., W.B.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The utility of vessel wall MR imaging in identifying unstable intracranial aneurysms has been suggested but remains controversial. PURPOSE: Our aim was to provide further insight into the potential relationship between aneurysm wall enhancement on initial vessel wall imaging and aneurysm instability at follow-up. DATA SOURCES: Our sources were PubMed, Scopus, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. STUDY SELECTION: We searched for English language studies that reported the presence of vessel wall enhancement of unruptured intracranial aneurysms on baseline vessel wall imaging studies with longitudinal follow-up of aneurysm status. DATA ANALYSIS: Aneurysms were grouped into "stable" and "unstable" groups at follow-up on the basis of growth, symptomatic manifestation, or rupture. The association of each group with aneurysm wall enhancement on initial vessel wall imaging was determined. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three studies constituting 407 aneurysms were included. Aneurysms with wall enhancement were at higher risk of being unstable at follow-up (risk ratio = 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-7.5). The sensitivity of aneurysm wall enhancement on vessel wall imaging was 74.3% (95% CI, 56.7%-87.5%), specificity was 58.3% (95% CI, 53.1%-63.4%), positive predictive value was 14.4% (95% CI, 11.8%-17.4%), negative predictive value was 96.0% (95% CI, 93.2%-97.7%), and the overall accuracy of the test was 59.7% (95% CI, 54.8%-64.5%). LIMITATIONS: Only 3 studies were identified for inclusion in this analysis. More longitudinal studies of vessel wall imaging and aneurysm progression are needed. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of wall enhancement may be a predictor of aneurysm stability. The utility of vessel wall imaging in detecting unstable aneurysms requires more data.
BACKGROUND: The utility of vessel wall MR imaging in identifying unstable intracranial aneurysms has been suggested but remains controversial. PURPOSE: Our aim was to provide further insight into the potential relationship between aneurysm wall enhancement on initial vessel wall imaging and aneurysm instability at follow-up. DATA SOURCES: Our sources were PubMed, Scopus, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. STUDY SELECTION: We searched for English language studies that reported the presence of vessel wall enhancement of unruptured intracranial aneurysms on baseline vessel wall imaging studies with longitudinal follow-up of aneurysm status. DATA ANALYSIS: Aneurysms were grouped into "stable" and "unstable" groups at follow-up on the basis of growth, symptomatic manifestation, or rupture. The association of each group with aneurysm wall enhancement on initial vessel wall imaging was determined. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three studies constituting 407 aneurysms were included. Aneurysms with wall enhancement were at higher risk of being unstable at follow-up (risk ratio = 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-7.5). The sensitivity of aneurysm wall enhancement on vessel wall imaging was 74.3% (95% CI, 56.7%-87.5%), specificity was 58.3% (95% CI, 53.1%-63.4%), positive predictive value was 14.4% (95% CI, 11.8%-17.4%), negative predictive value was 96.0% (95% CI, 93.2%-97.7%), and the overall accuracy of the test was 59.7% (95% CI, 54.8%-64.5%). LIMITATIONS: Only 3 studies were identified for inclusion in this analysis. More longitudinal studies of vessel wall imaging and aneurysm progression are needed. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of wall enhancement may be a predictor of aneurysm stability. The utility of vessel wall imaging in detecting unstable aneurysms requires more data.
Authors: Bing Tian; Shahed Toossi; Laura Eisenmenger; Farshid Faraji; Megan K Ballweber; S Andrew Josephson; Henrik Haraldsson; Chengcheng Zhu; Sinyeob Ahn; Gerhard Laub; Christopher Hess; David Saloner Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-11-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Bart M W Cornelissen; Eva L Leemans; Bram F Coolen; Eva S Peper; René van den Berg; Henk A Marquering; Cornelis H Slump; Charles B L M Majoie Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: S Nagahata; M Nagahata; M Obara; R Kondo; N Minagawa; S Sato; S Sato; W Mouri; S Saito; T Kayama Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 3.649
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: Raghav R Mattay; Jose F Saucedo; Vance T Lehman; Jiayu Xiao; Emmanuel C Obusez; Scott B Raymond; Zhaoyang Fan; Jae W Song Journal: Semin Ultrasound CT MR Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 1.641
Authors: Ashrita Raghuram; Alberto Varon; Sebastian Sanchez; Daizo Ishii; Chaorong Wu; Vincent A Magnotta; David M Hasan; Timothy R Koscik; Edgar A Samaniego Journal: Stroke Vasc Interv Neurol Date: 2022-05-08
Authors: Rob Molenberg; Marlien W Aalbers; Auke P A Appelman; Maarten Uyttenboogaart; J Marc C van Dijk Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Ashrita Raghuram; Alberto Varon; Jorge A Roa; Daizo Ishii; Yongjun Lu; Madhavan L Raghavan; Chaorong Wu; Vincent A Magnotta; David M Hasan; Timothy R Koscik; Edgar A Samaniego Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 4.379