B Dissaux1,2,3, F Eugène4, J Ognard2,5, J-Y Gauvrit4,6, J-C Gentric2,3, J-C Ferré4,6. 1. From the Department of Neuroradiology (B.D., F.E., J.-Y.G., J.-C.F.), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Rennes, Rennes, France brieg.dissaux@chu-brest.fr. 2. Department of Medical Imaging (B.D., J.O., J.-C.G.), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire La Cavale Blanche, Brest, France. 3. GETBO group EA3878 (B.D., J.-C.G.), Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest, France. 4. From the Department of Neuroradiology (B.D., F.E., J.-Y.G., J.-C.F.), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Rennes, Rennes, France. 5. LATIM U1101 (J.O.), INSERM, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest, France. 6. Empenn Unit U1228 (J.-Y.G., J.-C.F.), INSERM, INRIA, Université Rennes 1, Rennes, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 4D contrast-enhanced MRA in the follow-up of treated dural arteriovenous fistulas has rarely been evaluated. Our aim was to evaluate its diagnostic performance at 3T in the follow-up of embolized dural arteriovenous fistulas using DSA as the standard of reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated for dural arteriovenous fistulas in 2 centers between 2008 and 2019 were included if they met the following criteria: 1) dural arteriovenous fistula embolization, and 2) follow-up imaging with <6 months between DSA and 4D contrast-enhanced MRA. Two readers reviewed the 4D contrast-enhanced MRA images, first independently, then in consensus to detect any residual/recurrent dural arteriovenous fistula and to grade cases according to the Cognard classification system. Interobserver and intermodality agreement for the detection of a residual dural arteriovenous fistula and stratification of bleeding risk (0-I-IIa; IIb-IIa+b-III-IV-V) was calculated using κ coefficients. RESULTS: A total of 51 pairs of examinations for 44 patients (median age, 65 years; range, 25-81 years) were analyzed. Interobserver agreement for the detection and stratification of bleeding risk was, respectively, κ = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.6-1) and κ = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.5-1). After consensus review, the sensitivity and specificity of 4D contrast-enhanced MRA for the detection of residual/recurrent dural arteriovenous fistula was 63.6% (95% CI, 40.7%-82.8%) and 96.6% (95% CI, 82.2%-99.9%), respectively. The positive and negative predictive values of 4D contrast-enhanced MRA were 93.3% (95% CI, 68.1%-99.8%) and 77.8% (95% CI, 60.8%-89.9%). Intermodality agreement for the detection and stratification of bleeding risk was good, with κ = 0.60 (95% CI, 0.3-0.8). CONCLUSIONS: 4D contrast-enhanced MRA at 3T is of interest in the follow-up of treated dural arteriovenous fistulas but lacks the sensitivity to replace arteriography.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 4D contrast-enhanced MRA in the follow-up of treated dural arteriovenous fistulas has rarely been evaluated. Our aim was to evaluate its diagnostic performance at 3T in the follow-up of embolized dural arteriovenous fistulas using DSA as the standard of reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated for dural arteriovenous fistulas in 2 centers between 2008 and 2019 were included if they met the following criteria: 1) dural arteriovenous fistula embolization, and 2) follow-up imaging with <6 months between DSA and 4D contrast-enhanced MRA. Two readers reviewed the 4D contrast-enhanced MRA images, first independently, then in consensus to detect any residual/recurrent dural arteriovenous fistula and to grade cases according to the Cognard classification system. Interobserver and intermodality agreement for the detection of a residual dural arteriovenous fistula and stratification of bleeding risk (0-I-IIa; IIb-IIa+b-III-IV-V) was calculated using κ coefficients. RESULTS: A total of 51 pairs of examinations for 44 patients (median age, 65 years; range, 25-81 years) were analyzed. Interobserver agreement for the detection and stratification of bleeding risk was, respectively, κ = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.6-1) and κ = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.5-1). After consensus review, the sensitivity and specificity of 4D contrast-enhanced MRA for the detection of residual/recurrent dural arteriovenous fistula was 63.6% (95% CI, 40.7%-82.8%) and 96.6% (95% CI, 82.2%-99.9%), respectively. The positive and negative predictive values of 4D contrast-enhanced MRA were 93.3% (95% CI, 68.1%-99.8%) and 77.8% (95% CI, 60.8%-89.9%). Intermodality agreement for the detection and stratification of bleeding risk was good, with κ = 0.60 (95% CI, 0.3-0.8). CONCLUSIONS: 4D contrast-enhanced MRA at 3T is of interest in the follow-up of treated dural arteriovenous fistulas but lacks the sensitivity to replace arteriography.
Authors: H Raoult; J-C Ferré; X Morandi; B Carsin-Nicol; M Carsin; M Cuggia; M Law; J-Y Gauvrit Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-05-06 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Andrea Bink; Joachim Berkefeld; Marlies Wagner; Se-Jong You; Hanns Ackermann; Matthias W Lorenz; Christian Senft; Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Zachary Clark; Kevin M Johnson; Yijing Wu; Myriam Edjlali; Charles Mistretta; Oliver Wieben; Patrick Turski Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: S A Amukotuwa; M P Marks; G Zaharchuk; F Calamante; R Bammer; N Fischbein Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S Nishimura; T Hirai; A Sasao; M Kitajima; M Morioka; Y Kai; Y Omori; T Okuda; R Murakami; H Fukuoka; K Awai; J-I Kuratsu; Y Yamashita Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: C Cognard; Y P Gobin; L Pierot; A L Bailly; E Houdart; A Casasco; J Chiras; J J Merland Journal: Radiology Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 11.105