3.8 Article

Cerebral vascular malformations: Time-resolved CT angiography compared to DSA

期刊

NEURORADIOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 310-315

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1971400915589682

关键词

time resolved CT angiogram; digital subtraction angiogram; arterio-venous malformation; arterio-venous fistula

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to prospectively test the hypothesis that time-resolved CT angiography (TRCTA) on a Toshiba 320-slice CT scanner enables the same characterization of cerebral vascular malformation (CVM) including arteriovenous malformation (AVM), dural arteriovenous fistula (DAVF), pial arteriovenous fistula (PAVF) and developmental venous anomaly (DVA) compared to digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Materials and methods: Eighteen (eight males, 10 females) consecutive patients (11 AVM, four DAVF, one PAVF, and two DVA) underwent 19 TRCTA (Aquillion one, Toshiba) for suspected CVM diagnosed on routine CT or MRI. One patient with a dural AVF underwent TRCTA and DSA twice before and after treatment. Of the 18 patients, 13 were followed with DSA (Artis, Siemens) within two months of TRCTA. Twenty-three sequential volume acquisitions of the whole head were acquired after injection of 50 ml contrast at the rate of 4 ml/sec. Two patients with DVA did not undergo DSA. Two TRCTA were not assessed because of technical problems. TRCTAs were independently reviewed by two neuroradiologists and DSA by two other neuroradiologists and graded according to the Spetzler-Martin classification, Borden classification, overall diagnostic quality, and level of confidence. Weighted kappa coefficients (k) were calculated to compare reader's assessment of DSA vs TRCTA. Results: There was excellent (k=0.83 and 1) to good (k=0.56, 0.61, 0.65 and 0.67) agreement between the different possible pairs of neuroradiologists for the assessment of vascular malformations. Conclusion: TRCTA may be a sufficient noninvasive substitute for conventional DSA in certain clinical situations.

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

3.8
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