Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
ReplyLetter

Reply:

A.J Geers, I. Larrabide, A.G. Radaelli, H. Bogunovic, M. Kim, A.F. Frangi, H.A.F. Gratama van Andel, C.B. Majoie and E. VanBavel
American Journal of Neuroradiology June 2011, 32 (6) E123; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2562
A.J Geers
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
I. Larrabide
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A.G. Radaelli
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H. Bogunovic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Kim
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A.F. Frangi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H.A.F. Gratama van Andel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C.B. Majoie
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
E. VanBavel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

We greatly appreciate the comments by Dr Kallmes regarding our article on the differences in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of aneurysmal blood flow due to the choice of imaging technique between CT angiography and 3D rotational angiography (3DRA).1 We found large quantitative differences in the estimation of hemodynamic variables, but qualitative variables that describe the main flow characteristics were reproduced across imaging modalities.

In our population, the estimated mean wall shear stress on the aneurysm differed on average 44.2%. Although this result indeed encourages us to be prudent when analyzing quantitative data, we think that Dr Kallmes' doubt about the utility of CFD-derived hemodynamic variables is not fully justified. The main flow characteristics that reproduced well in our study have also been found to compare well with in vivo data,2,3 and they seem to provide valuable information regarding aneurysm development. Last year, the American Journal of Neuroradiology published 2 articles by Cebral et al4,5 demonstrating the potential of CFD simulations in a study of 200 cases imaged with 3DRA. The authors found associations between aneurysmal rupture risk and both qualitative and normalized quantitative variables, suggesting that despite inaccuracies in the estimated magnitude of hemodynamic forces, valuable information can be derived from flow patterns alone.

We never set out to answer the question “Which imaging technique is the standard of reference?” in our study. With its higher spatial resolution and lower visibility of bone, we can expect 3DRA to provide superior anatomic accuracy in comparison with CTA and, therefore, superior accuracy in the CFD simulation. However, without data on the true geometry of the vasculature and the true hemodynamics, we were not in the position to support statements about which of the imaging modalities in our patient data produced estimations closer to the “truth.” As mentioned before, other studies did make comparisons with in vivo data and found the main flow characteristics of CFD simulations to agree well.

We thank Dr Kallmes for providing new images related to the study by Brinjikji et al6 that argued in favor of 2D digital subtraction angiography over 3DRA in performing anatomic measurements. 2D imaging techniques are not an option when constructing 3D vascular models for CFD simulations, but the findings of Brinjikji et al illustrate clearly that better spatial resolution will naturally lead to improved neck characterizations7 and, more generally, that advances in imaging techniques will naturally lead to more accurate vascular models. However, we would like to emphasize that the vascular models we used were not threshold segmentations that depend strongly on the choice of threshold value (in the way that the size of vascular structures in the visualization of 3DRA images depends on window/level settings). The vascular models were instead obtained by using a completely automatic geodesic active region segmentation algorithm. More details on this method and its accuracy are provided by Hernandez and Frangi.8

We hope that we have shed some light on the reproducibility of CFD simulations across imaging modalities. Despite the inaccuracies in quantitative hemodynamic variables, we genuinely believe that CFD simulations have proved and will continue to prove useful in understanding the initiation, growth, and rupture of aneurysms and will 1 day find their way into clinical practice to provide the clinician with patient-specific accurate information on the hemodynamic condition of an aneurysm.

References

  1. 1.
    1. Geers AJ,
    2. Larrabide I,
    3. Radaelli AG
    . , et al. Patient-specific computational hemodynamics of intracranial aneurysms from 3D rotational angiography and CT angiography: an in vivo reproducibility study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:581–86
  2. 2.
    1. Ford MD,
    2. Stuhne GR,
    3. Nikolov HN,
    4. et al
    . Virtual angiography for visualization and validation of computational models of aneurysm hemodynamics. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2005;24:1586–92
  3. 3.
    1. Karmonik C,
    2. Klucznik R,
    3. Benndorf G
    . Comparison of velocity patterns in an AComA aneurysm measured with 3D phase contrast MRI and simulated with CFD. Technol Health Care 2008;16:119–28
  4. 4.
    1. Cebral JR,
    2. Mut F,
    3. Weir J,
    4. et al
    . Association of hemodynamic characteristics and cerebral aneurysm rupture. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:264–70
  5. 5.
    1. Cebral JR,
    2. Mut F,
    3. Weir J,
    4. et al
    . Quantitative characterization of the hemodynamic environment in ruptured and unruptured brain aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:145–51. Epub 2010 Dec 2
  6. 6.
    1. Brinjikji W,
    2. Cloft H,
    3. Lanzino G,
    4. et al
    . Comparison of 2D digital subtraction angiography and 3D rotational angiography in the evaluation of dome-to-neck ratio. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:831–34. Epub 2009 Jan 8
  7. 7.
    1. Kallmes DF,
    2. Layton K,
    3. Marx WF,
    4. et al
    . Death by nondiagnosis: why emergent CT angiography should not be done for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1837–38
  8. 8.
    1. Hernandez M,
    2. Frangi AF
    . Non-parametric geodesic active regions: method and evaluation for cerebral aneurysms segmentation in 3DRA and CTA. Med Image Anal 2007;11:224–41. Epub 2007 Feb 25
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2022 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2023 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire