BACKGROUND: Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) remains the gold standard for angiographic evaluation of cerebrovascular pathology, however, multiple acquisitions requiring additional time and radiation are often needed. In contrast, 3D-DSA provides volumetric information from a single injection but neglects temporal information. Four-dimensional-DSA (4D-DSA) combines temporal information of 2D-DSA with volumetric information of 3D-DSA to provide time-resolved tomographic 3D reconstructions, potentially reducing procedure time and radiation. This work evaluates the diagnostic quality of virtual single-frame 4D-DSA relative to 2D-DSA images by assessing clinicians' ability to evaluate cerebrovascular pathology. METHODS: Single-frame images of four projections from 4D-DSA and their corresponding 2D-DSA images (n = 15) were rated by two neurointerventional radiologists. Images were graded based on diagnostic quality (0 = non-diagnostic, 1 = poor, 2 = acceptable, 3 = good). Dose area product (DAP) for each case was recorded for all 2D-DSA, 4D-DSA acquisitions, and the overall procedure. RESULTS: The mean diagnostic quality of all four 4D-DSA projections from both raters was 1.75 while the mean of 2D-DSA projections was 2.8. Student's t-test revealed significant difference in diagnostic quality between 4D-DSA and 2D-DSA at all four projections (p < 0.001). On average 4D-DSA acquisitions accounted for 30% dose compared to the overall average aggregated dose per procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The difference in image quality between virtual single-frame 4D-DSA and their respective 2D-DSA images is statistically significant. Furthermore, 4D-DSA acquisitions require less radiation dose than conventional procedures with 2D-DSA acquisitions.
BACKGROUND: Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) remains the gold standard for angiographic evaluation of cerebrovascular pathology, however, multiple acquisitions requiring additional time and radiation are often needed. In contrast, 3D-DSA provides volumetric information from a single injection but neglects temporal information. Four-dimensional-DSA (4D-DSA) combines temporal information of 2D-DSA with volumetric information of 3D-DSA to provide time-resolved tomographic 3D reconstructions, potentially reducing procedure time and radiation. This work evaluates the diagnostic quality of virtual single-frame 4D-DSA relative to 2D-DSA images by assessing clinicians' ability to evaluate cerebrovascular pathology. METHODS: Single-frame images of four projections from 4D-DSA and their corresponding 2D-DSA images (n = 15) were rated by two neurointerventional radiologists. Images were graded based on diagnostic quality (0 = non-diagnostic, 1 = poor, 2 = acceptable, 3 = good). Dose area product (DAP) for each case was recorded for all 2D-DSA, 4D-DSA acquisitions, and the overall procedure. RESULTS: The mean diagnostic quality of all four 4D-DSA projections from both raters was 1.75 while the mean of 2D-DSA projections was 2.8. Student's t-test revealed significant difference in diagnostic quality between 4D-DSA and 2D-DSA at all four projections (p < 0.001). On average 4D-DSA acquisitions accounted for 30% dose compared to the overall average aggregated dose per procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The difference in image quality between virtual single-frame 4D-DSA and their respective 2D-DSA images is statistically significant. Furthermore, 4D-DSA acquisitions require less radiation dose than conventional procedures with 2D-DSA acquisitions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Digital subtraction angiography; brain arteriovenous malformation(s); dose area product; dural arteriovenous fistulas(s); intracerebral hemorrhage
Authors: S Lang; P Gölitz; T Struffert; J Rösch; K Rössler; M Kowarschik; C Strother; A Doerfler Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Y Wu; G Shaughnessy; C A Hoffman; E L Oberstar; S Schafer; T Schubert; K L Ruedinger; B J Davis; C A Mistretta; C M Strother; M A Speidel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Michael S Stecker; Stephen Balter; Richard B Towbin; Donald L Miller; Eliseo Vañó; Gabriel Bartal; J Fritz Angle; Christine P Chao; Alan M Cohen; Robert G Dixon; Kathleen Gross; George G Hartnell; Beth Schueler; John D Statler; Thierry de Baère; John F Cardella Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Carolina Sandoval-Garcia; Kevin Royalty; Pengfei Yang; David Niemann; Azam Ahmed; Beverly Aagaard-Kienitz; Mustafa K Başkaya; Sebastian Schafer; Charles Strother Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2015-01-12 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: C Sandoval-Garcia; P Yang; T Schubert; S Schafer; S Hetzel; A Ahmed; C Strother Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: B Davis; K Royalty; M Kowarschik; C Rohkohl; E Oberstar; B Aagaard-Kienitz; D Niemann; O Ozkan; C Strother; C Mistretta Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Gabe Shaughnessy; Sebastian Schafer; Michael A Speidel; Charles M Strother; Charles A Mistretta Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Aishwarya Raman; Manish Uprety; Maria Jose Calero; Maria Resah B Villanueva; Narges Joshaghani; Nicole Villa; Omar Badla; Raman Goit; Samia E Saddik; Sarah N Dawood; Ahmad M Rabih; Ahmad Mohammed; Tharun Yadhav Selvamani; Jihan Mostafa Journal: Cureus Date: 2022-06-09