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
Research ArticleEDITORIAL

Technical Aspects of Neuroangiography: Are Risks and Safeguards Understood in the Same Way?

Allan J. Fox
American Journal of Neuroradiology November 2001, 22 (10) 1809-1810;
Allan J. Fox
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Details of technical safeguards for neuroangiography are seldom discussed at regional or national neuroradiology meetings. Even discussion among peers about the real risks involved are rare. It is as if neuroangiographers learned what there was to know from their mentors, made whatever adjustments they believed valuable early in their careers, and never again reconsidered changes in technique and safety. The article by Yousem and Trinh (page 1838) on the results of a survey of the angiographic injection rates for cerebral angiography, which appears in this issue, is a welcome opening and change.

Yousem and Trinh have questioned the rates and volumes of contrast material injection into the cervical portions of carotid or vertebral arteries for angiographic examination of acute subarachnoid hemorrhage. They were stimulated by the small number of case reports in the recent literature about aneurysm rupture during angiographic injection. Their survey revealed that substantial amounts of contrast material are being injected and that the respondents were confident that the rates used were not important in regard to the risks of active complications.

The literature and experience clearly show that the risk of aneurysm rerupture during angiography is trivial. Having practiced neuroradiology, including active neuroangiography, at the well-known aneurysm center in London, Ontario, Canada, for more than 24 y, I experienced only two occasions of aneurysm rupture during angiography, both fatal, among thousands of cases of subarachnoid hemorrhage involving angiography. Aneurysms are known to have a serious spontaneous rebleeding rate during the first days after hemorrhage. This high risk of rebleeding guides much of the aggressive treatment for aneurysms to protect against the next episode of bleed. If only two ruptures occurred during angiography in thousands of such cases, the real question to ask is, “Why are there so few cases of rebleeding during angiography?” The spontaneous aneurysm rebleeding rates that are well documented for ruptured aneurysms should have coincidentally caused many more cases of bleeding during angiography than the very few observed.

The multidecade-long practice of neuroangiography in London, Ontario, for subarachnoid hemorrhage has included the injection of healthy volumes of contrast material, always with a mechanical pump, and residents, fellows, and neuroradiologists have been the prime operators. The overall angiographic risk was described in a prospective clinical trial performed in the mid-1980s (1), and it has changed little since that time. For 2 decades, 3000 U of heparin per 500 mL of normal saline has been used for flushing by means of a syringe and for constant infusion, even in patients with acute subarachnoid hemorrhage. Since the change to universal digital angiography, the nonionic contrast material now used is diluted to a 50:50 or 33:67 ratio of heparin and saline mixed with contrast material. Rates of injection of diluted contrast material have always been higher than the mean of the results of Yousem and Trinh, namely, 10 mL/s for a total of 12 mL in the common carotid injections, 6–7 mL/s for a total of 9–10 mL in the internal carotid injections, and 6–7 mL/s for a total of 9 mL in vertebral injections. Those who inject smaller volumes might consider this approach aggressive. The goal is to enable thorough angiography, opening up all potential “nooks and crannies,” in the search for aneurysms.

Actually, a natural protection for the pressure wave of the injection discussed by Yousem and Trinh exists. With injection into the common carotid or internal carotid artery, as normally performed, most of the highest pressure is dissipated downward toward the more proximal vessel. The slight extra pressure that goes upward adds some transient cross-filling of the anterior and posterior communicating arteries, which is desirable as an aid to thorough angiographic demonstration of aneurysms. Certainly, an incidence of missed aneurysms caused by inadequate angiography exists when cross-filling is not achieved, and manual compression of the carotid artery to induce cross-filling adds potential risk, as well as extra radiation exposure of the angiographer who does it.

Producing a pressure wave from the force of injection that is dangerously transmitted into the aneurysm is still a possibility; it is one of the risks for which safeguards during angiography are constantly needed. The potential that an injection of contrast material could cause an aneurysm rupture is enhanced by the placement of an angiographic catheter in a position where it may stimulate arterial wall spasm at the level of the catheter tip. Catheter spasm can effectively occlude the artery and then transmit any excess pressure upward during injection, because the artery effectively becomes a temporarily closed system. This situation must be actively avoided by using multiple simple technical tricks: 1) Place the curve of the catheter tip within a natural curve of the internal or vertebral artery; 2) withdraw all potential slack of the catheter in the aorta before beginning the injection; and 3) when performing a small check injection with fluoroscopy, observe the prompt dilution of the contrast material flowing upward from the catheter tip. When any concern exists, the catheter should be slowly and slightly pulled down to reverse the arrest of flow around the catheter tip. With such safeguards, catheter spasm rarely occurs. Without catheter spasm, the risk an injection of contrast material causing aneurysm rupture is small.

Many more little “tricks” to keep neuroangiography safe exist, and more frequent informal discussions between angiographers could stimulate sharing of these ideas. Clearly, safe angiography is currently performed in the neuroradiology community, as evidenced by the few ruptured aneurysms reported during angiography. Likely the mentioned safety tricks, or alternatives, are commonly used. More surveys of how neuroangiographers avoid serious trouble would provide a continuing forum in which neuroangiographers can share their experiences, so that those with more complications in their practice might glean new additional safeguards to use in their patients.

References

  1. ↵
    Dion JE, Gates PC, Fox AJ, Barnett HJM, Blom RJ. Clinical events following neuroangiography: a prospective study. Stroke 1987;18:997-1004
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 22 (10)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 22, Issue 10
1 Nov 2001
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Technical Aspects of Neuroangiography: Are Risks and Safeguards Understood in the Same Way?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Technical Aspects of Neuroangiography: Are Risks and Safeguards Understood in the Same Way?
Allan J. Fox
American Journal of Neuroradiology Nov 2001, 22 (10) 1809-1810;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Technical Aspects of Neuroangiography: Are Risks and Safeguards Understood in the Same Way?
Allan J. Fox
American Journal of Neuroradiology Nov 2001, 22 (10) 1809-1810;
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Evaluation of the Pontine Perforators of the Basilar Artery Using Digital Subtraction Angiography in High Resolution and 3D Rotation Technique
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • The No Surprises Act: What Neuroradiologists Should Know
  • Call to Action: Women in Neuroradiology’s Group (WINNERS)—Is There a Need?
  • The Z-Shift: A Need for Quality Management System Level Testing and Standardization in Neuroimaging Pipelines
Show more EDITORIAL

Similar Articles

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