Ahmet Kursat Karaman1, Bora Korkmazer2, Serdar Arslan2, Ugur Uygunoglu3, Ercan Karaarslan4, Osman Kızılkılıc2, Naci Kocer2, Civan Islak2. 1. Department of Radiology, Sureyyapasa Chest Diseases and Thoracic Surgery Training Hospital, Başıbüyük Mah. Hastane Yolu Cad, 34844, Istanbul, Turkey. kursat.karaman@istanbul.edu.tr. 2. Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey. 3. Department of Neurology, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey. 4. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to demonstrate the diagnostic effect of VWI in differentiating PACNS from other vasculopathies and its role in post-treatment follow-up in PACNS patients in this study. METHODS: In this prospective study, we included patients with clinical suspicion of PACNS who presented with new-onset ischemic events and had significant intracranial large vessel stenosis on DSA or MRA. VWI was performed on all patients. The imaging findings and final diagnoses were recorded. Control VWI was performed on patients with PACNS diagnosis after at least 3 months of treatment, and the change in findings was also evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were included in the study had a median age of 40 (range 12-58). The most common clinical manifestations were focal neurologic deficits. According to the initial clinical evaluation, 10 patients (43.5%) were classified as PACNS and 13 patients (56.5%) as indeterminate for PACNS. After incorporating the VWI findings, the diagnosis of PACNS was confirmed in all clinically diagnosed PACNS patients. Concentric wall thickening and contrast enhancement were statistically significant in the PACNS group (p <0.001). According to concentric thickening and VWE features, sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing PACNS and other vasculopathies were 95.2%, 75% and 95.2%, 68.8%, respectively. Vessel wall enhancement regressed in 7 of 9 patients during a median follow-up period of 8 months (range 5.5-11.5) in PACNS patients who followed up. CONCLUSION: VWI seems a new and useful imaging method in the differential diagnosis of PACNS and might be a useful adjunct for post-treatment follow-up.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to demonstrate the diagnostic effect of VWI in differentiating PACNS from other vasculopathies and its role in post-treatment follow-up in PACNS patients in this study. METHODS: In this prospective study, we included patients with clinical suspicion of PACNS who presented with new-onset ischemic events and had significant intracranial large vessel stenosis on DSA or MRA. VWI was performed on all patients. The imaging findings and final diagnoses were recorded. Control VWI was performed on patients with PACNS diagnosis after at least 3 months of treatment, and the change in findings was also evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were included in the study had a median age of 40 (range 12-58). The most common clinical manifestations were focal neurologic deficits. According to the initial clinical evaluation, 10 patients (43.5%) were classified as PACNS and 13 patients (56.5%) as indeterminate for PACNS. After incorporating the VWI findings, the diagnosis of PACNS was confirmed in all clinically diagnosed PACNS patients. Concentric wall thickening and contrast enhancement were statistically significant in the PACNS group (p <0.001). According to concentric thickening and VWE features, sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing PACNS and other vasculopathies were 95.2%, 75% and 95.2%, 68.8%, respectively. Vessel wall enhancement regressed in 7 of 9 patients during a median follow-up period of 8 months (range 5.5-11.5) in PACNS patients who followed up. CONCLUSION: VWI seems a new and useful imaging method in the differential diagnosis of PACNS and might be a useful adjunct for post-treatment follow-up.
Entities:
Keywords:
Magnetic resonance imaging; Primary angiitis of the central nervous system; Vasculitis; Vessel wall imaging
Authors: Carlo Salvarani; Robert D Brown; Kenneth T Calamia; Teresa J H Christianson; Stephen D Weigand; Dylan V Miller; Caterina Giannini; James F Meschia; John Huston; Gene G Hunder Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: E C Obusez; F Hui; R A Hajj-Ali; R Cerejo; L H Calabrese; T Hammad; S E Jones Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-04-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Wilhelm Küker; Susanne Gaertner; Thomas Nagele; Christian Dopfer; Martin Schoning; Jens Fiehler; Peter M Rothwell; Ulrich Herrlinger Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2008-05-30 Impact factor: 2.762