A Benomar1, B Farzin1, G Gevry1, W Boisseau1, D Roy1, A Weill1, D Iancu1, F Guilbert1, L Létourneau-Guillon1, G Jacquin2, C Chaalala3, M W Bojanowski3, M Labidi3, R Fahed4, D Volders5, T N Nguyen6, J-C Gentric7, E Magro8, G Boulouis9, G Forestier10, J-F Hak11, J S Ghostine12, Z Kaderali13, J J Shankar14, M Kotowski15, T E Darsaut16, J Raymond17. 1. From the Department of Radiology (A.B., B.F., G.G., W.B., D.R., A.W., D.I., F.G., L.L.-G., J.R.). 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Neurology (G.J.). 3. Division of Neurosurgery (C.C., M.W.B., M.L.), Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 4. Division ofNeurology (R.F.), The Ottawa Hospital Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Diagnostic Radiology (D.V.), Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 6. Departments of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Radiology (T.N.N.), Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Departments of Interventional Neuroradiology (J.-C.G.). 8. Neurosurgery (E.M.), Hôpital de la Cavale Blanche, Centre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Brest, Brest, France. 9. Department of Neuroradiology (G.B.), Centre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Tours, Tours, France. 10. Department of Neuroradiology (G.F.), University Hospital of Limoges, Limoges, France. 11. Department of Medical Imaging (J.-F.H.), University Hospital Timone Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France. 12. Department of Radiology (J.S.G.), Jean-Talon Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 13. Section of Neurosurgery (Z.K.). 14. Department of Radiology (J.J.S.), Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 15. Department of Neurosurgery (M.K.), Hôpital de la Providence, Neuchâtel, Switzerland. 16. Department of Surgery (T.E.D.), Division of Neurosurgery,Walter C. Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 17. From the Department of Radiology (A.B., B.F., G.G., W.B., D.R., A.W., D.I., F.G., L.L.-G., J.R.) jean.raymond@umontreal.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Noninvasive angiography is commonly used to assess the outcome of surgical or endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms in clinical series or randomized trials. We sought to assess whether a standardized 3-grade classification system could be reliably used to compare the CTA and MRA results of both treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic portfolio composed of CTAs of 30 clipped and MRAs of 30 coiled aneurysms was independently evaluated by 24 raters of diverse experience and training backgrounds. Twenty raters performed a second evaluation 1 month later. Raters were asked which angiographic grade and management decision (retreatment; close or long-term follow-up) would be most appropriate for each case. Agreement was analyzed using the Krippendorff α (αK) statistic, and the relationship between angiographic grade and clinical management choice, using the Fisher exact and Cramer V tests. RESULTS: Interrater agreement was substantial (αK = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.55-0.70); results were slightly better for MRA results of coiling (αK = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.76) than for CTA results of clipping (αK = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.69). Intrarater agreement was substantial to almost perfect. Interrater agreement regarding clinical management was moderate for both clipped (αK = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.61) and coiled subgroups (αK = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.54). The choice of clinical management was strongly associated with the size of the residuum (mean Cramer V = 0.77 [SD, 0.14]), but complete occlusions (grade 1) were followed more closely after coiling than after clipping (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized 3-grade scale was found to be a reliable and clinically meaningful tool to compare the results of clipping and coiling of aneurysms using CTA or MRA.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Noninvasive angiography is commonly used to assess the outcome of surgical or endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms in clinical series or randomized trials. We sought to assess whether a standardized 3-grade classification system could be reliably used to compare the CTA and MRA results of both treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic portfolio composed of CTAs of 30 clipped and MRAs of 30 coiled aneurysms was independently evaluated by 24 raters of diverse experience and training backgrounds. Twenty raters performed a second evaluation 1 month later. Raters were asked which angiographic grade and management decision (retreatment; close or long-term follow-up) would be most appropriate for each case. Agreement was analyzed using the Krippendorff α (αK) statistic, and the relationship between angiographic grade and clinical management choice, using the Fisher exact and Cramer V tests. RESULTS: Interrater agreement was substantial (αK = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.55-0.70); results were slightly better for MRA results of coiling (αK = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.76) than for CTA results of clipping (αK = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.69). Intrarater agreement was substantial to almost perfect. Interrater agreement regarding clinical management was moderate for both clipped (αK = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.61) and coiled subgroups (αK = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.54). The choice of clinical management was strongly associated with the size of the residuum (mean Cramer V = 0.77 [SD, 0.14]), but complete occlusions (grade 1) were followed more closely after coiling than after clipping (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized 3-grade scale was found to be a reliable and clinically meaningful tool to compare the results of clipping and coiling of aneurysms using CTA or MRA.
Authors: Tim E Darsaut; Hubert Desal; Christophe Cognard; Anne-Christine Januel; Romain Bourcier; Grégoire Boulouis; Jai Jai Shiva Shankar; J Max Findlay; Jeremy L Rempel; Robert Fahed; Edoardo Boccardi; Luca Valvassori; Elsa Magro; Jean-Christophe Gentric; Michel W Bojanowski; Chiraz Chaalala; Daniela Iancu; Daniel Roy; Alain Weill; Ange Diouf; Guylaine Gevry; Miguel Chagnon; Jean Raymond Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: M J van Amerongen; H D Boogaarts; J de Vries; A L M Verbeek; F J A Meijer; M Prokop; R H M A Bartels Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Marc Kotowski; Behzad Farzin; Robert Fahed; François Guilbert; Miguel Chagnon; Tim E Darsaut; Roy T Daniel; Jean Raymond Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Gustavo Pradilla; Robert T Wicks; Uri Hadelsberg; Philippe Gailloud; Alexander L Coon; Judy Huang; Rafael J Tamargo Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2012-12-05 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: S Jamali; R Fahed; J-C Gentric; L Letourneau-Guillon; H Raoult; F Bing; L Estrade; T N Nguyen; É Tollard; J-C Ferre; D Iancu; O Naggara; M Chagnon; A Weill; D Roy; A J Fox; D F Kallmes; J Raymond Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S Claiborne Johnston; Christopher F Dowd; Randall T Higashida; Michael T Lawton; Gary R Duckwiler; Daryl R Gress Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-11-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: J Raymond; D Iancu; W Boisseau; J D B Diestro; R Klink; M Chagnon; J Zehr; B Drake; H Lesiuk; A Weill; D Roy; M W Bojanowski; C Chaalala; J L Rempel; C O'Kelly; M M Chow; S Bracard; T E Darsaut Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 4.966