| Literature DB >> 35126301 |
Xiaoyu Tang1,2, Longjiang Zhou3, Lili Wen1, Qi Wu1, Xiaochang Leng4, Jianping Xiang4, Xin Zhang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Keywords: DSA (digital subtraction angiogram); aneurysm rupture; hemodynamic parameters; intracranial mirror aneurysms; morphologic parameters
Year: 2022 PMID: 35126301 PMCID: PMC8812485 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.811281
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1Definitions of morphological parameters (A: Bifurcation aneurysm, B: Sidewall aneurysm): Maximum size: the maximum distance of the dome from the neck plane; Neck width: the largest cross-sectional diameter of the aneurysm neck; Hmax: the maximum distance of the dome from the centroid of the neck plane; Height: the perpendicular distance of the dome from the neck plane; Width: the maximum diameter perpendicular to height; H/W ratio = height/width; bottleneck factor (BNF) = width/neck width; aspect ratio (AR) = height/neck width; size ratio (SR) = Hmax/DV, and DV were determined by averaging the diameter of the cross-section of a vessel (Da) just proximal to the neck of the aneurysm and the diameter of the cross-section (Db) at 1.5 times Da from the neck of the aneurysm. DV (mean diameters of parent vessels) = [(D1a + D1b)/2 + (D2a + D2b)/2 + (D3a + D3b)/2+ … (Dna + Dnb)/2]/n.
The univariate analysis of morphological and hemodynamic characteristics associated with rupture of the aneurysm.
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| ||||||
| Yes | 43(82.7) | 38(73.1) | 1.396 | 0.237 | 0.548 | |
| No | 9(17.3) | 14(26.9) | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Yes | 40(76.9) | 7(13.5) | 42.275 |
| 0.817 | |
| No | 12(23.1) | 45(86.5) | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Yes | 38(73.1) | 5(9.6) | 43.178 |
| 0.817 | |
| No | 14(26.9) | 47(90.3) | ||||
| Max size (mm) | 7.70 ± 3.30 | 4.42 ± 1.97 | 6.149 |
| 0.834 | 5.36 |
| Height (mm) | 5.50 ± 2.36 | 3.04 ± 1.53 | 6.293 |
| 0.817 | 3.63 |
| Width (mm) | 5.55 ± 2.94 | 3.63 ± 1.85 | 3.958 |
| 0.754 | 3.91 |
| Neck width (mm) | 5.96 ± 1.02 | 4.46 ± 1.51 | 2.717 |
| 0.633 | 3.67 |
| Hmax (mm) | 6.14 ± 2.65 | 3.36 ± 1.52 | 6.540 |
| 0.834 | 4.08 |
| Bottle neck factor | 1.25 ± 0.43 | 0.95 ± 0.23 | 4.333 |
| 0.694 | 1.10 |
| Aspect ratio | 1.25 ± 0.44 | 0.81 ± 0.25 | 6.355 |
| 0.812 | 0.90 |
| Size ratio | 2.06 ± 0.77 | 1.06 ± 0.47 | 7.476 |
| 0.873 | 1.31 |
| Height/Width | 1.03 ± 0.26 | 0.86 ± 0.24 | 3.794 |
| 0.712 | 0.88 |
| Hmax/width | 1.15 ± 0.28 | 0.96 ± 0.24 | 3.747 |
| 0.691 | 0.95 |
| Inflow angle(°) | 108.18 ± 23.22 | 106.42 ± 28.68 | 0.342 | 0.733 | 0.519 | 100.9 |
| WSSmean (Pa) | 4.71 ± 3.58 | 6.98 ± 5.71 | 2.429 |
| 0.315 | 3.875 |
| WSSmax (Pa) | 29.22 ± 17.23 | 26.96 ± 17.55 | 0.663 | 0.509 | 0.549 | 24.11 |
| OSImean | 0.039 ± 0.041 | 0.025 ± 0.022 | 2.115 |
| 0.676 | 0.025 |
| WSSnormal | 0.70 ± 0.41 | 0.97 ± 0.61 | 2.683 |
| 0.334 | 0.63 |
| WSSmeanpt (Pa) | 7.18 ± 4.94 | 7.40 ± 3.40 | 0.263 | 0.793 | 0.485 | 6.17 |
Variables showing statistical significance (p < 0.05) are in bold.
The multivariate logistic regression analysis of factors associated with rupture of the aneurysm.
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neck width | −0.707 | 0.283 | 6.250 |
| 0.493 (0.283, 0.858) |
| Bleb | 3.061 | 0.767 | 15.916 |
| 21.358 (4.746, 96.105) |
| SR | 2.100 | 0.642 | 10.684 |
| 8.166 (2.318, 28.764) |
| Constant | −1.495 | 0.907 | 2.714 | 0.099 | 0.025 (0.001, 0.687) |
Variables showing statistical significance (p < 0.05) are in bold.
Figure 2Comparison of hemodynamic characteristics of mirror aneurysms in a typical patient. (A) Complex flow pattern in ruptured aneurysm with blebs; (B) Simple flow pattern in unruptured aneurysm; (C,D) Lower wall shear stress (WSS) was observed in the ruptured aneurysm (2.47 vs. 2.72 Pa, p = 0.017); (E,F) No statistical differences in maximum WSS (MWSS) (44.45 vs. 14.56 Pa, p = 0.509); and (G,H) Higher oscillatory shear index (OSI) in the ruptured aneurysm (0.031 vs. 0.025, p = 0.037).
Figure 3(A) Results of the receiver operating characteristics (ROCs); (B) The area under the curve (AUC) values for key parameters.
Figure 4Presentation of the AUC (0.901) of the model. Bleb formation, SR, and neck width were the parameters leading to the prediction quality of models with respect to rupture status of the aneurysm.