4.4 Article

Is digital substraction angiography still needed for the follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by embolisation with detachable coils?

期刊

NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 50, 期 10, 页码 841-848

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00234-008-0450-2

关键词

intracranial aneurysm; digital substraction angiography; magnetic resonance angiography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by embolisation with detachable coils is mandatory to detect a possible recanalisation. The aim of this study was to compare contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) with digital substraction angiography (DSA) used to detect aneurysm recanalisation to determine if DSA is still needed during follow-up. Materials and methods From May 2006 to May 2007, 55 patients with 67 aneurysms were treated by endosaccular coiling with (n=9) or without (n=58) an adjunctive stent. Follow-up imaging protocol included MRA at 6 and 12 months and a DSA at 12 months or earlier if a major recanalisation was identified on the 6-month MRA. Two neuroradiologists independently reviewed MRA images (readers 1 and 2) and two other reviewed DSA images. Results Follow-up DSA showed stability of the aneurysm occlusion in 52 cases, recanalisation in 14 cases, and further thrombosis in one. On CE-MRA, both readers identified all recanalisations but one (sensitivity of 93%) as they missed a major recanalisation in a 2-mm ruptured aneurysm. There were two false-positive evaluations by reader 1 and three for reader 2. Mean specificity of CE-MRA to detect aneurysm recanalisation was 95.5%. Conclusion CE-MRA is accurate to detect aneurysm recanalisation after embolisation with detachable coils. CE-MRA may be proposed as first-intention imaging technique for their follow-up. However, its sensitivity and specificity remain inferior to that of DSA and major recurrences may be missed in very small aneurysms. Therefore, a single DSA remains mandatory during the imaging follow-up.

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