4.4 Article

Diagnostic yield of delayed neurovascular imaging in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, negative initial CT and catheter angiograms, and a negative 7 day repeat catheter angiogram

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROINTERVENTIONAL SURGERY
卷 6, 期 8, 页码 637-642

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2013-010896

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The yield of delayed neurovascular imaging in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), negative initial CT and catheter angiograms (CT angiography (CTA), DSA), and negative 7 day repeat DSA is not well understood. Our aim was to determine the yield of delayed neurovascular imaging for the detection of causative vascular lesions in this clinical scenario. Methods We retrospectively examined the yield of delayed CTA and DSA for the detection of causative vascular lesions in patients presenting to our institution with SAH, negative initial CTA and DSA examinations, and a negative 7 day repeat DSA during a 6.5 year period. Two neuroradiologists evaluated the non-contrast CTs to determine the SAH pattern, and the delayed CTAs and DSAs to assess for the presence of a causative vascular lesion. Results 39 patients were included: 23 men (59%) and 16 women (41%), mean age 55.5 years (range 33-75). 25 patients had diffuse SAH (64.1%), 12 had perimesencephalic SAH (30.8%), and two had peripheral sulcal SAH (5.1%). The delayed neurovascular examination was CIA in 30 patients (76.9%) and DSA in nine patients (23.1%). Mean time to delayed CIA or DSA was 34.9 days (median 34, range 14-69 days). Delayed CIA demonstrated a causative vascular lesion in two patients (5.1%, one small internal carotid artery aneurysm and one small pontine arteriovenous malformation), both with diffuse SAH (yield 8%). Conclusions Delayed neurovascular imaging is valuable in the evaluation of patients with diffuse SAH who have negative initial CIA and DSA examinations and a negative 7 day repeat DSA, demonstrating a causative vascular lesion in 8% of patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据