4.6 Article

Aneurysm Volume-to-Ostium Area Ratio: A Parameter Useful for Discriminating the Rupture Status of Intracranial Aneurysms

Journal

NEUROSURGERY
Volume 68, Issue 2, Pages 310-317

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182010ed0

Keywords

Aneurysm; Aspect ratio; Hemodynamics; Rupture; Volume-to-ostium ratio

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Slow or stagnant flow is a hemodynamic feature that has been linked to the risk of aneurysm rupture. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential value of the ratio of the volume of an aneurysm to the area of its ostium (VOR) as an indicator of intra-aneurysmal slow flow and, thus, in turn, the risk of rupture. METHODS: Using a sample defined from internal databases, a retrospective analysis of aneurysm size, aspect ratio (AR), and VOR was performed on a series of 155 consecutive aneurysms having undergone 3-dimensional digital subtraction angiography as a part of their evaluation. Measurements were obtained from 3-dimensional digital subtraction angiography studies using commercial software. Aneurysm size, AR, and VOR were correlated with rupture status (ruptured or unruptured). A multiple logistic regression model that best correlated with rupture status was generated to evaluate which of these parameters was the most useful to discriminate rupture status. This model was validated using an independent database of 62 consecutive aneurysms acquired outside the retrospective study interval. RESULTS: VOR showed better discrimination for rupture status than did size and AR. The best logistic regression model, which included VOR rather than size or AR, determined rupture status correctly in 80.6% of subjects. The reproducibility calculating AR and VOR was excellent. CONCLUSION: Determination of VOR was easily done and reproducible using widely available commercial equipment. It may be a more robust parameter to discriminate rupture status than AR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available