The clinical value of ceMRA versus DSA for follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by coil embolization: an assessment of occlusion classifications and impact on treatment decisions.
Angiography
Digital subtraction
Endovascular procedures
Intracranial aneurysm
Magnetic resonance angiography
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
09
06
2020
accepted:
10
11
2020
revised:
10
09
2020
pubmed:
23
11
2020
medline:
21
5
2021
entrez:
22
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was a detailed analysis of the value of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (ceMRA) compared to digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for follow-up imaging of intracranial aneurysms treated by coil embolization. Patients with coiled aneurysms and follow-up exams including both DSA and 3 T ceMRA were retrospectively identified. In blinded readings, both modalities were graded according to the modified Raymond-Roy classification (MRRC) and the Meyers scale. Additionally, readers were asked to make a decision regarding retreatment/follow-up based on the respective imaging findings. The study comprised 92 patients harboring 102 coiled aneurysms. There was good intermethod agreement of DSA and ceMRA concerning both the MRRC (κ = 0.64) and the Meyers scale (κ = 0.74). Agreement regarding occlusion of < 90% of the aneurysm (Meyers grade ≥ 2) was very good (κ = 0.87). Regarding the detection of a remnant with contrast between the coil mass and the aneurysm wall (MRRC IIIb), there were 12 discrepant findings and agreement was good (κ = 0.70). Comparing treatment/follow-up decisions, the two methods agreed very well (κ = 0.92). In seven patients with discrepant treatment decisions, the authors concurred with DSA in four cases and with ceMRA in three cases when evaluating both modalities together. Interval aneurysm growth was found in more cases with ceMRA (n = 19) than with DSA (n = 16). CeMRA is very unlikely to miss a relevant aneurysm remnant and thus could be suitable as the primary follow-up method. In case of remnant growth or recurrence, however, additional DSA might be required to guide treatment decisions. • There is high accordance between ceMRA and DSA regarding the evaluation of intracranial aneurysms treated by endovascular coil embolization, but closer analysis also revealed relevant differences. • CeMRA could be suitable as the primary follow-up imaging modality, potentially eliminating the need for routine DSA. • DSA will still be required in case of aneurysm remnant growth or recurrence as detected by ceMRA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33221944
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07492-3
pii: 10.1007/s00330-020-07492-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4104-4113Références
Lin N, Cahill KS, Frerichs KU, Friedlander RM, Claus EB (2012) Treatment of ruptured and unruptured cerebral aneurysms in the USA: a paradigm shift. J Neurointerv Surg 4(3):182–189. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis.2011.004978
doi: 10.1136/jnis.2011.004978
pubmed: 21990481
Brinjikji W, Lanzino G, Rabinstein AA, Kallmes DF, Cloft HJ (2013) Age-related trends in the treatment and outcomes of ruptured cerebral aneurysms: a study of the nationwide inpatient sample 2001-2009. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 34(5):1022–1027. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3321
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3321
pubmed: 23124637
pmcid: 7964634
Naggara ON, White PM, Guilbert F, Roy D, Weill A, Raymond J (2010) Endovascular treatment of intracranial unruptured aneurysms: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on safety and efficacy. Radiology 256(3):887–897. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091982
doi: 10.1148/radiol.10091982
pubmed: 20634431
Molyneux AJ, Kerr RS, Yu LM et al (2005) International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised comparison of effects on survival, dependency, seizures, rebleeding, subgroups, and aneurysm occlusion. Lancet 366(9488):809–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67214-5
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67214-5
Molyneux AJ, Birks J, Clarke A, Sneade M, Kerr RS (2015) The durability of endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping of ruptured cerebral aneurysms: 18 year follow-up of the UK cohort of the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT). Lancet 385(9969):691–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60975-2
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60975-2
pubmed: 25465111
pmcid: 4356153
Pierot L, Spelle L, Vitry F, ATENA Investigators (2008) Immediate clinical outcome of patients harboring unruptured intracranial aneurysms treated by endovascular approach: results of the ATENA study. Stroke 39(9):2497–2504. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.512756
Ferns SP, Sprengers ME, van Rooij WJ et al (2009) Coiling of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review on initial occlusion and reopening and retreatment rates. Stroke 40(8):e523–e529. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.553099
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.553099
pubmed: 19520984
Lecler A, Raymond J, Rodriguez-Regent C et al (2015) Intracranial aneurysms: recurrences more than 10 years after endovascular treatment-a prospective cohort study, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Radiology 277(1):173–180. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142496
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015142496
pubmed: 26057784
Yeon EK, Cho YD, Yoo DH et al(2020) Delayed progression to major recanalization in coiled aneurysms with minor recanalization at 36-month follow-up: incidence and related risk factors. Clin Neuroradiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-020-00887-1
Soize S, Gawlitza M, Raoult H, Pierot L (2016) Imaging follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by endovascular means: why, when, and how? Stroke 47(5):1407–1412. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011414
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011414
pubmed: 27026629
Hacein-Bey L, Provenzale JM (2011) Current imaging assessment and treatment of intracranial aneurysms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(1):32–44. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5329
doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5329
pubmed: 21178044
Cloft HJ, Joseph GJ, Dion JE (1999) Risk of cerebral angiography in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, cerebral aneurysm, and arteriovenous malformation: a meta-analysis. Stroke 30(2):317–320. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.30.2.317
doi: 10.1161/01.str.30.2.317
pubmed: 9933266
pmcid: 9933266
Willinsky RA, Taylor SM, TerBrugge K, Farb RI, Tomlinson G, Montanera W (2003) Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography: prospective analysis of 2,899 procedures and review of the literature. Radiology 227(2):522–528. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2272012071
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2272012071
pubmed: 12637677
Agid R, Willinsky RA, Lee SK, Terbrugge KG, Farb RI (2008) Characterization of aneurysm remnants after endovascular treatment: contrast-enhanced MR angiography versus catheter digital subtraction angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 29(8):1570–1574. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1124
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1124
pubmed: 18499789
pmcid: 8119053
Gramsch C, Zulow S, Nensa F et al (2016) Can we now dispense with DSA in the evaluation of aneurysm occlusion even in the most crucial first follow-up after endovascular treatment? Clin Neurol Neurosurg 149:136–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.08.005
doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.08.005
pubmed: 27522540
Pierot L, Portefaix C, Boulin A, Gauvrit JY (2012) Follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms: comparison of 3D time-of-flight and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography at 3T in a large, prospective series. Eur Radiol 22(10):2255–2263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2466-6
doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2466-6
pubmed: 22569997
van Amerongen MJ, Boogaarts HD, de Vries J et al (2014) MRA versus DSA for follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms: a meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 35(9):1655–1661. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3700
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3700
pubmed: 24008171
pmcid: 7966263
Menke J, Schramm P, Sohns JM, Kallenberg K, Staab W (2014) Diagnosing flow residuals in coiled cerebral aneurysms by MR angiography: meta-analysis. J Neurol 261(4):655–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-013-7053-5
doi: 10.1007/s00415-013-7053-5
pubmed: 23893001
Ahmed SU, Mocco J, Zhang X et al (2019) MRA versus DSA for the follow-up imaging of intracranial aneurysms treated using endovascular techniques: a meta-analysis. J Neurointerv Surg 11(10):1009–1014. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-014936
doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-014936
pubmed: 31048457
Kwee TC, Kwee RM (2007) MR angiography in the follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils: systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroradiology 49(9):703–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-007-0266-5
doi: 10.1007/s00234-007-0266-5
pubmed: 17646977
Roy D, Milot G, Raymond J (2001) Endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms. Stroke 32(9):1998–2004. https://doi.org/10.1161/hs0901.095600
doi: 10.1161/hs0901.095600
Mascitelli JR, Moyle H, Oermann EK et al (2015) An update to the Raymond-Roy occlusion classification of intracranial aneurysms treated with coil embolization. J Neurointerv Surg 7(7):496–502. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011258
doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011258
pubmed: 24898735
Stapleton CJ, Torok CM, Rabinov JD et al (2016) Validation of the modified Raymond-Roy classification for intracranial aneurysms treated with coil embolization. J Neurointerv Surg 8(9):927–933. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-012035
doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-012035
pubmed: 26438554
Meyers PM, Schumacher HC, Higashida RT et al (2010) Reporting standards for endovascular repair of saccular intracranial cerebral aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg 2(4):312–323. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis.2010.002337
doi: 10.1136/jnis.2010.002337
pubmed: 21990640
Rouchaud A, Brinjikji W, Gunderson T et al (2016) Validity of the Meyer scale for assessment of coiled aneurysms and aneurysm recurrence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37(5):844–848. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4616
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4616
pubmed: 26564443
pmcid: 7960325
Kaufmann TJ, Huston J 3rd, Cloft HJ et al (2010) A prospective trial of 3T and 1.5T time-of-flight and contrast-enhanced MR angiography in the follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31(5):912–918. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1932
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1932
pubmed: 20019107
pmcid: 7964181
Schaafsma JD, Velthuis BK, Majoie CB et al (2010) Intracranial aneurysms treated with coil placement: test characteristics of follow-up MR angiography--multicenter study. Radiology 256(1):209–218. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091528
doi: 10.1148/radiol.10091528
pubmed: 20505063
Lavoie P, Gariepy JL, Milot G et al (2012) Residual flow after cerebral aneurysm coil occlusion: diagnostic accuracy of MR angiography. Stroke 43(3):740–746. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.635300
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.635300
pubmed: 22267824
Eskridge JM, Song JK (1998) Endovascular embolization of 150 basilar tip aneurysms with Guglielmi detachable coils: results of the Food and Drug Administration multicenter clinical trial. J Neurosurg 89(1):81–86. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1998.89.1.0081
doi: 10.3171/jns.1998.89.1.0081
pubmed: 9647176
Kuether TA, Nesbit GM, Barnwell SL (1998) Clinical and angiographic outcomes, with treatment data, for patients with cerebral aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils: a single-center experience. Neurosurgery 43(5):1016–1025. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006123-199811000-00007
doi: 10.1097/00006123-199811000-00007
pubmed: 9802844
Schaafsma JD, Velthuis BK, van den Berg R et al (2012) Coil-treated aneurysms: decision making regarding additional treatment based on findings of MR angiography and intraarterial DSA. Radiology 265(3):858–863. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112608
doi: 10.1148/radiol.12112608
pubmed: 23012464
Lubicz B, Neugroschl C, Collignon L, Francois O, Baleriaux D (2008) Is digital subtraction angiography still needed for the follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by embolisation with detachable coils? Neuroradiology 50(10):841–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-008-0450-2
doi: 10.1007/s00234-008-0450-2
pubmed: 18795274
Marciano D, Soize S, Metaxas G, Portefaix C, Pierot L (2017) Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with stent-assisted coiling: comparison of contrast-enhanced MRA, time-of-flight MRA, and digital subtraction angiography. J Neuroradiol 44(1):44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurad.2016.10.004
doi: 10.1016/j.neurad.2016.10.004
pubmed: 27836654
Cloft HJ, Kaufmann T, Kallmes DF (2007) Observer agreement in the assessment of endovascular aneurysm therapy and aneurysm recurrence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28(3):497–500
pubmed: 17353321
Zuckerman SL, Lakomkin N, Magarik JA et al (2018) Evaluation of previously embolized intracranial aneurysms: inter-and intra-rater reliability among neurosurgeons and interventional neuroradiologists. J Neurointerv Surg 10(5):462–466. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013231
doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013231
pubmed: 28918386