M Mossa-Basha1,2, C Zhu2, C Yuan3, L Saba4, D A Saloner5, M Edjlali6, N V Stence7, D M Mandell8, J M Romero9, Y Qiao10, D J Mikulis8, B A Wasserman10,11. 1. From the Department of Radiology (M.M.-B.), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina mmossab@med.unc.edu. 2. Department of Radiology (M.M.-B., C.Z.), University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Radiology (C.Y.), University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 4. University of Cagliari (L.S.), Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy. 5. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging (D.A.S.), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 6. Department of Radiology (M.E.), AP-HP, Laboratoire d'imagerie Biomédicale Multimodale (BioMaps), Paris-Saclay University, Paris, France. 7. Department of Radiology (N.V.S.), Children's Hospital of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado. 8. Joint Department of Medical Imaging (D.M.M., D.J.M.), University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 9. Department of Radiology (J.M.R.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 10. Department of Radiology (Y.Q., B.A.W.), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 11. Department of Radiology (B.A.W.), University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intracranial vessel wall MR imaging is an emerging technique for intracranial vasculopathy assessment. Our aim was to investigate intracranial vessel wall MR imaging use by the American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR) members at their home institutions, including indications and barriers to implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ASNR Vessel Wall Imaging Study Group survey on vessel wall MR imaging use, frequency, applications, MR imaging systems and field strength used, protocol development approaches, vendor engagement, reasons for not using vessel wall MR imaging, ordering-provider interest, and impact on clinical care, was distributed to the ASNR membership between April 2 and August 30, 2019. RESULTS: There were 532 responses; 79 were excluded due to nonresponse and 42 due to redundant institutional responses, leaving 411 responses. Fifty-two percent indicated that their institution performs vessel wall MR imaging, with 71.5% performed at least 1-2 times/month, most frequently on 3T MR imaging, and 87.7% using 3D sequences. Protocols most commonly included were T1-weighted pre- and postcontrast and TOF-MRA; 60.6% had limited contributions from vendors or were still in protocol development. Vasculopathy differentiation (94.4%), cryptogenic stroke (41.3%), aneurysm (38.0%), and atherosclerosis (37.6%) evaluation were the most common indications. For those not performing vessel wall MR imaging, interpretation (53.1%) or technical (46.4%) expertise, knowledge of applications (50.5%), or limitations of clinician (56.7%) or radiologist (49.0%) interest were the most common reasons. If technical/expertise obstacles were overcome, 56.4% of those not performing vessel wall MR imaging indicated that they would perform it. Ordering providers most frequently inquiring about vessel wall MR imaging were from stroke neurology (56.5%) and neurosurgery (25.1%), while 34.3% indicated that no providers had inquired. CONCLUSIONS: More than 50% of neuroradiology groups use vessel wall MR imaging for intracranial vasculopathy characterization and differentiation, emphasizing the need for additional technical and educational support, especially as clinical vessel wall MR imaging implementation continues to grow.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intracranial vessel wall MR imaging is an emerging technique for intracranial vasculopathy assessment. Our aim was to investigate intracranial vessel wall MR imaging use by the American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR) members at their home institutions, including indications and barriers to implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ASNR Vessel Wall Imaging Study Group survey on vessel wall MR imaging use, frequency, applications, MR imaging systems and field strength used, protocol development approaches, vendor engagement, reasons for not using vessel wall MR imaging, ordering-provider interest, and impact on clinical care, was distributed to the ASNR membership between April 2 and August 30, 2019. RESULTS: There were 532 responses; 79 were excluded due to nonresponse and 42 due to redundant institutional responses, leaving 411 responses. Fifty-two percent indicated that their institution performs vessel wall MR imaging, with 71.5% performed at least 1-2 times/month, most frequently on 3T MR imaging, and 87.7% using 3D sequences. Protocols most commonly included were T1-weighted pre- and postcontrast and TOF-MRA; 60.6% had limited contributions from vendors or were still in protocol development. Vasculopathy differentiation (94.4%), cryptogenic stroke (41.3%), aneurysm (38.0%), and atherosclerosis (37.6%) evaluation were the most common indications. For those not performing vessel wall MR imaging, interpretation (53.1%) or technical (46.4%) expertise, knowledge of applications (50.5%), or limitations of clinician (56.7%) or radiologist (49.0%) interest were the most common reasons. If technical/expertise obstacles were overcome, 56.4% of those not performing vessel wall MR imaging indicated that they would perform it. Ordering providers most frequently inquiring about vessel wall MR imaging were from stroke neurology (56.5%) and neurosurgery (25.1%), while 34.3% indicated that no providers had inquired. CONCLUSIONS: More than 50% of neuroradiology groups use vessel wall MR imaging for intracranial vasculopathy characterization and differentiation, emphasizing the need for additional technical and educational support, especially as clinical vessel wall MR imaging implementation continues to grow.
Authors: Mahmud Mossa-Basha; Thien J Huynh; Daniel S Hippe; Peter Fata; Ryan P Morton; Michael R Levitt Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2018-09-21 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Mahmud Mossa-Basha; Dean K Shibata; Danial K Hallam; Adam de Havenon; Daniel S Hippe; Kyra J Becker; David L Tirschwell; Thomas Hatsukami; Niranjan Balu; Chun Yuan Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-10-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jason Brett Hartman; Hiroko Watase; Jie Sun; Daniel S Hippe; Louis Kim; Michael Levitt; Laligam Sekhar; Niranjan Balu; Thomas Hatsukami; Chun Yuan; Mahmud Mossa-Basha Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Mahmud Mossa-Basha; William D Hwang; Adam De Havenon; Daniel Hippe; Niranjan Balu; Kyra J Becker; David T Tirschwell; Thomas Hatsukami; Yoshimi Anzai; Chun Yuan Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Ye Qiao; Zeeshan Anwar; Jarunee Intrapiromkul; Li Liu; Steven R Zeiler; Richard Leigh; Yiyi Zhang; Eliseo Guallar; Bruce A Wasserman Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Ye Qiao; Steven R Zeiler; Saeedeh Mirbagheri; Richard Leigh; Victor Urrutia; Robert Wityk; Bruce A Wasserman Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mahmud Mossa-Basha; Hiroko Watase; Jie Sun; Dean K Shibata; Daniel S Hippe; Niranjan Balu; Thomas Hatsukami; Chun Yuan Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 3.039