Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010 May;31(5):912-8. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1932. Epub 2009 Dec 17.
Endovascularly coiled intracranial aneurysms are increasingly being followed up with noninvasive MRA imaging to evaluate for aneurysm recurrences. It has not been well-established which MRA techniques are best for this application, however. Our aim was to prospectively compare 4 MRA techniques, TOF and CE-MRA at 1.5T and 3T, to a reference standard of DSA in the evaluation of previously endovascularly coiled intracranial aneurysms.
Fifty-eight subjects with 63 previously coiled intracranial aneurysms underwent all 4 MRA techniques within 8 days of DSA. There were 2 outcome variables: coil occlusion class (class 1, complete; class 2, dog ear; class 3, residual neck; class 4, aneurysm filling) and change in degree of occlusion since the previous comparison. Sensitivity and specificity were computed for each MRA technique relative to the reference standard of DSA. Differences among the MRA techniques were evaluated in pair-wise fashion by using the McNemar test.
For the detection of any aneurysm remnant, the sensitivity was 85%-90% for all MRA techniques. Sensitivity dropped to 50%-67% when calculated for the detection of only the class 3 and 4 aneurysm remnants, because several class 3 and 4 remnants were misclassified as class 2 by MRA. CE-MRA at 1.5T and 3T misclassified fewer of the class 3 and 4 remnants than did TOF-MRA at 1.5T, as reflected by the significantly greater sensitivity for larger aneurysm remnants with CE-MRA relative to TOF-MRA at 1.5T (P = .0455 for both comparisons).
CE-MRA is more likely than TOF-MRA to classify larger aneurysm remnants appropriately. We recommend performing both CE-MRA and TOF-MRA in the follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms and at 3T if available.
血管内栓塞的颅内动脉瘤越来越多地采用无创 MRA 成像进行随访,以评估动脉瘤的复发情况。然而,目前尚未确定哪种 MRA 技术最适合这种应用。我们的目的是前瞻性比较 4 种 MRA 技术,即 1.5T 和 3T 的 TOF 和 CE-MRA,与 DSA 作为评估先前血管内栓塞颅内动脉瘤的参考标准。
58 例 63 个先前栓塞的颅内动脉瘤患者在 DSA 后 8 天内行 4 种 MRA 技术检查。有 2 个结局变量:线圈闭塞分级(1 级,完全;2 级,狗耳;3 级,残余颈部;4 级,动脉瘤充盈)和自上次比较以来闭塞程度的变化。计算每种 MRA 技术相对于 DSA 参考标准的敏感性和特异性。通过 McNemar 检验对 MRA 技术进行两两比较。
对于任何动脉瘤残端的检测,所有 MRA 技术的敏感性为 85%-90%。当仅计算 3 级和 4 级动脉瘤残端的检出率时,敏感性降至 50%-67%,因为一些 3 级和 4 级残端被 MRA 错误分类为 2 级。1.5T 的 CE-MRA 和 3T 的 CE-MRA 比 1.5T 的 TOF-MRA 误分类的 3 级和 4 级残端更少,这反映了 CE-MRA 相对于 1.5T 的 TOF-MRA 对较大的动脉瘤残端的敏感性显著更高(两种比较的 P 值均为<.0455)。
CE-MRA 比 TOF-MRA 更有可能正确分类较大的动脉瘤残端。我们建议在颅内动脉瘤栓塞后随访时,以及在有条件的情况下在 3T 时同时进行 CE-MRA 和 TOF-MRA。