4.4 Article

Hemodynamic differences between unstable and stable unruptured aneurysms independent of size and location: a pilot study

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROINTERVENTIONAL SURGERY
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 376-+

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012327

关键词

-

资金

  1. Society of Interventional Radiology Pilot Research Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background While clinical and angiographic risk factors for intracranial aneurysm instability are well established, it is reasonable to postulate that intra-aneurysmal hemodynamics also have a role in aneurysm instability. Objective To identify hemodynamic characteristics that differ between radiologically unstable and stable unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Materials and methods 12 pairs of unruptured intracranial aneurysms with a 3D rotational angiographic set of images and followed up longitudinally without treatment were studied. Each pair consisted of one stable aneurysm (no change on serial imaging) and one unstable aneurysm (demonstrated growth of at least 1 mm diameter or ruptured during follow-up) of matching size (within 10%) and locations. Patient-specific computational fluid dynamics models were created and run under pulsatile flow conditions. Relevant hemodynamic and geometric variables were calculated and compared between groups using the paired Wilcoxon test. Results The area of the aneurysm under low wall shear stress (low shear stress area (LSA)) was 2.26 times larger in unstable aneurysms than in stable aneurysms (p=0.0499). The mean aneurysm vorticity was smaller by a factor of 0.57 in unstable aneurysms compared with stable aneurysms (p=0.0499). No statistically significant differences in geometric variables or shape indices were found. Conclusions This pilot study suggests there may be hemodynamic differences between unstable and stable unruptured cerebral aneurysms. In particular, the area under low wall shear stress was larger in unstable aneurysms. These findings should be considered tentative until confirmed by future larger studies.

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