Rupture risk assessment for multiple intracranial aneurysms: why there is no need for dozens of clinical, morphological and hemodynamic parameters.
hemodynamics
morphology
multiple intracranial aneurysms
rupture risk assessment
unruptured intracranial aneurysms
Journal
Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders
ISSN: 1756-2856
Titre abrégé: Ther Adv Neurol Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101480242
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
12
07
2020
accepted:
21
09
2020
entrez:
6
1
2021
pubmed:
7
1
2021
medline:
7
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A multitude of approaches have been postulated for assessing the risk of intracranial aneurysm rupture. However, the amount of potential predictive factors is not applicable in clinical practice and they are rejected in favor of the more practical PHASES score. For the subgroup of multiple intracranial aneurysms (MIAs), the PHASES score might severely underestimate the rupture risk, as only the aneurysm with the largest diameter is considered for risk evaluation. In this study, we investigated 38 patients harboring a total number of 87 MIAs with respect to their morphological and hemodynamical characteristics. For the determination of the best suited parameters regarding their predictive power for aneurysm rupture, we conducted three phases of statistical evaluation. The statistical analysis aimed to identify parameters that differ significantly between ruptured and unruptured aneurysms, show smallest possible correlations among each other and have a high impact on rupture risk prediction. Significant differences between ruptured and unruptured aneurysms were found in 16 out of 49 parameters. The lowest correlation were found for gamma, aspect ratio (AR1), aneurysm maximal relative residence time (Aneurysm_RRT_max) and aneurysm mean relative residence time. The data-driven parameter selection yielded a significant correlation of only two parameters (AR1 and the Aneurysm_RRT_max) with rupture state (area under curve = 0.75). A high number of established morphological and hemodynamical parameters seem to have no or only low effect on prediction of aneurysm rupture in patients with MIAs. For best possible rupture risk assessment of patients with MIAs, only the morphological parameter AR1 and the hemodynamical parameter Aneurysm_RRT_max need to be included in the prediction model.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33403004
doi: 10.1177/1756286420966159
pii: 10.1177_1756286420966159
pmc: PMC7739206
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1756286420966159Informations de copyright
© The Author(s), 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Références
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018 Nov;13(11):1781-1793
pubmed: 30159832
Stroke. 1998 Jan;29(1):251-6
pubmed: 9445359
Neurology. 2015 Sep 8;85(10):881-9
pubmed: 26276380
J Neurosurg. 2005 Feb;102(2):355-62
pubmed: 15739566
Lancet Neurol. 2009 Jul;8(7):635-42
pubmed: 19501022
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 Jan;32(1):145-51
pubmed: 21127144
J Biomech Eng. 2014 Apr;136(4):
pubmed: 24292415
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 06;10(7):e0132494
pubmed: 26147995
Neurosurgery. 1998 Jul;43(1):22-6; discussion 26-7
pubmed: 9657184
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Jun;33(6):991-2
pubmed: 22555572
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018 Nov;13(11):1767-1779
pubmed: 30094777
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Oct;35(10):1849-57
pubmed: 24029393
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 Aug;32(7):1255-61
pubmed: 21757526
World Neurosurg. 2018 Jun;114:e338-e343
pubmed: 29524719
Lancet Neurol. 2014 Jan;13(1):59-66
pubmed: 24290159
Stroke. 2018 Apr;49(4):848-855
pubmed: 29511128
Stroke. 2011 Jan;42(1):144-52
pubmed: 21106956
Neurosurgery. 2018 Apr 1;82(4):491-496
pubmed: 28605486
J Biomech Eng. 2009 Jun;131(6):061013
pubmed: 19449967
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018 Jan;13(1):83-93
pubmed: 28733907
Stroke. 2013 Sep;44(9):2414-21
pubmed: 23868274
Neuroradiology. 2011 Nov;53(11):883-9
pubmed: 21107548
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2017;44(1-2):75-82
pubmed: 28502970
Lancet Neurol. 2011 Jul;10(7):626-36
pubmed: 21641282
Stroke. 2013 Aug;44(8):2169-73
pubmed: 23743979
Lancet. 2003 Jul 12;362(9378):103-10
pubmed: 12867109
J Neurosurg. 2017 Jul;127(1):96-101
pubmed: 27715433
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2013 Feb;155(2):211-6
pubmed: 23196925
Stroke. 2010 Sep;41(9):1969-77
pubmed: 20671254
BMC Neurol. 2014 Dec 31;14:253
pubmed: 25551809
Int J Surg. 2016 Aug;32:129-35
pubmed: 27398690
Lancet. 2002 Oct 26;360(9342):1267-74
pubmed: 12414200
Stroke. 2000 Feb;31(2):392-7
pubmed: 10657411
Neuroradiology. 2008 Aug;50(8):653-64
pubmed: 18560819
Int J Stroke. 2011 Jun;6(3):266-70
pubmed: 21557815
Stroke. 2010 May;41(5):916-20
pubmed: 20378866
Lancet Neurol. 2014 Apr;13(4):393-404
pubmed: 24646873
Neurosurgery. 2018 Apr 1;82(4):431-440
pubmed: 28498930
Neurosurg Focus. 2009 May;26(5):E5
pubmed: 19409006
Neurosurg Focus. 2019 Jul 1;47(1):E15
pubmed: 31261119
Neurosurgery. 2008 Aug;63(2):185-96; discussion 196-7
pubmed: 18797347
Stroke. 2009 Feb;40(2):406-11
pubmed: 19023101
J Neurosurg. 1985 Jul;63(1):49-55
pubmed: 4009274
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 Feb;39(2):337-343
pubmed: 29269407
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Feb;11(2):153-158
pubmed: 30341160
Neurosurgery. 1997 Jun;40(6):1155-9; discussion 1159-60
pubmed: 9179887