MRA Versus DSA for Follow-Up of Coiled Intracranial Aneurysms: A Meta-Analysis

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Rinkel GJ,
   2. Djibuti M,
   3. Algra A,
   4. et al

   . Prevalence and risk of rupture of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review. Stroke 1998;29:251–56

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Vlak MH,
   2. Algra A,
   3. Brandenburg R,
   4. et al

   . Prevalence of unruptured intracranial aneurysms, with emphasis on sex, age, comorbidity, country, and time period: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol 2011;10:626–36

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Molyneux A,
   2. Kerr R,
   3. Stratton I,
   4. et al

   . International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002;360:1267–74

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   1. Naggara ON,
   2. White PM,
   3. Guilbert F,
   4. et al

   . Endovascular treatment of intracranial unruptured aneurysms: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on safety and efficacy. Radiology 2010;256:887–97

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Dawkins AA,
   2. Evans AL,
   3. Wattam J,
   4. et al

   . Complications of cerebral angiography: a prospective analysis of 2,924 consecutive procedures. Neuroradiology 2007;49:753–59

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Thiex R,
   2. Norbash AM,
   3. Frerichs KU

   . The safety of dedicated-team catheter-based diagnostic cerebral angiography in the era of advanced noninvasive imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:230–34

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. Willinsky RA,
   2. Taylor SM,
   3. TerBrugge K,
   4. et al

   . Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography: prospective analysis of 2,899 procedures and review of the literature. Radiology 2003;227:522–28

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   1. Kwee TC,
   2. Kwee RM

   . MR angiography in the follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils: systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroradiology 2007;49:703–13

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   1. Raymond J,
   2. Guilbert F,
   3. Weill A,
   4. et al

   . Long-term angiographic recurrences after selective endovascular treatment of aneurysms with detachable coils. Stroke 2003;34:1398–403

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    1. Roy D,
    2. Raymond J,
    3. Bouthillier A,
    4. et al

    . Endovascular treatment of ophthalmic segment aneurysms with Guglielmi detachable coils. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1997;18:1207–15

    Abstract
11. 11.↵
    1. Roy D,
    2. Milot G,
    3. Raymond J

    . Endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms. Stroke 2001;32:1998–2004

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Schunemann HJ,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Brozek J,
    4. et al

    . Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ 2008;336:1106–10

    FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Schunemann HJ,
    4. et al

    . GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:380–82

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Guyatt G,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Akl EA,
    4. et al

    . GRADE guidelines, 1: introduction: GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:383–94

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Kunz R,
    4. et al

    . GRADE guidelines, 2: framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:395–400

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Balshem H,
    2. Helfand M,
    3. Schunemann HJ,
    4. et al

    . GRADE guidelines, 3: rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:401–06

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Vist G,
    4. et al

    . GRADE guidelines, 4: rating the quality of evidence: study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:407–15

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Montori V,
    4. et al

    . GRADE guidelines, 5: rating the quality of evidence: publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1277–82

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Kunz R,
    4. et al

    . GRADE guidelines, 6: rating the quality of evidence: imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1283–93

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Kunz R,
    4. et al

    . GRADE guidelines, 7: rating the quality of evidence: inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1294–302

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Kunz R,
    4. et al

    . GRADE guidelines, 8: rating the quality of evidence: indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1303–10

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Sultan S,
    4. et al

    . GRADE guidelines, 9: rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1311–16

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Brennan P,
    2. Silman A

    . Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. BMJ 1992;304:1491–94

    FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    1. Zamora J,
    2. Abraira V,
    3. Muriel A,
    4. et al

    . Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:31

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Derdeyn CP,
    2. Graves VB,
    3. Turski PA,
    4. et al

    . MR angiography of saccular aneurysms after treatment with Guglielmi detachable coils: preliminary experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1997;18:279–86

    Abstract
26. 26.↵
    1. Gonner F,
    2. Heid O,
    3. Remonda L,
    4. et al

    . MR angiography with ultrashort echo time in cerebral aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1998;19:1324–28

    Abstract
27. 27.↵
    1. Brunereau L,
    2. Cottier JP,
    3. Sonier CB,
    4. et al

    . Prospective evaluation of time-of-flight MR angiography in the follow-up of intracranial saccular aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999;23:216–23

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Kahara VJ,
    2. Seppanen SK,
    3. Ryymin PS,
    4. et al

    . MR angiography with three-dimensional time-of-flight and targeted maximum-intensity-projection reconstructions in the follow-up of intracranial aneurysms embolized with Guglielmi detachable coils. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1999;20:1470–75

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    1. Anzalone N,
    2. Righi C,
    3. Simionato F,
    4. et al

    . Three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography in the evaluation of intracranial aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:746–52

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
30. 30.↵
    1. Boulin A,
    2. Pierot L

    . Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with detachable coils: comparison of gadolinium-enhanced 3D time-of-flight MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 2001;219:108–13

    PubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Weber W,
    2. Yousry TA,
    3. Felber SR,
    4. et al

    . Noninvasive follow-up of GDC-treated saccular aneurysms by MR angiography. Eur Radiol 2001;11:1792–97

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Leclerc X,
    2. Navez JF,
    3. Gauvrit JY,
    4. et al

    . Aneurysms of the anterior communicating artery treated with Guglielmi detachable coils: follow-up with contrast-enhanced MR angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:1121–27

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
33. 33.↵
    1. Nome T,
    2. Bakke SJ,
    3. Nakstad PH

    . MR angiography in the follow-up of coiled cerebral aneurysms after treatment with Guglielmi detachable coils. Acta Radiol 2002;43:10–14

    FREE Full Text
34. 34.↵
    1. Park SW,
    2. Han MH,
    3. Cha SH,
    4. et al

    . PC-based 3D reconstruction of MR angiography in evaluation of intracranial aneurysms. The value of pre-treatment planning for embolization and post-treatment follow-up. Interv Neuroradiol 2002;8:169–81

    PubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Cottier JP,
    2. Bleuzen-Couthon A,
    3. Gallas S,
    4. et al

    . Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with detachable coils: comparison of plain radiographs, 3D time-of-flight MRA and digital subtraction angiography. Neuroradiology 2003;45:818–24

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Cottier JP,
    2. Bleuzen-Couthon A,
    3. Gallas S,
    4. et al

    . Intracranial aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils: is contrast material necessary in the follow-up with 3D time-of-flight MR angiography? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:1797–803

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
37. 37.↵
    1. Zizka J,
    2. Krajina A,
    3. Lojik M

    . The reliability of MR angiography as the sole imaging method for non-invasive follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils. Rivista di Neuroradiologia 2003;16:1137–38
38. 38.↵
    1. Okahara M,
    2. Kiyosue H,
    3. Hori Y,
    4. et al

    . Three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography for evaluation of intracranial aneurysms after endosaccular packing with Guglielmi detachable coils: comparison with 3D digital subtraction angiography. Eur Radiol 2004;14:1162–68

    PubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Yamada N,
    2. Hayashi K,
    3. Murao K,
    4. et al

    . Time-of-flight MR angiography targeted to coiled intracranial aneurysms is more sensitive to residual flow than is digital subtraction angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:1154–57

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
40. 40.↵
    1. Farb RI,
    2. Nag S,
    3. Scott JN,
    4. et al

    . Surveillance of intracranial aneurysms treated with detachable coils: a comparison of MRA techniques. Neuroradiology 2005;47:507–15

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Gauvrit JY,
    2. Leclerc X,
    3. Pernodet M,
    4. et al

    . Intracranial aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils: usefulness of 6-month imaging follow-up with contrast-enhanced MR angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:515–21

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
42. 42.↵
    1. Majoie CBLM,
    2. Sprengers ME,
    3. Van Rooij WJJ,
    4. et al

    . MR angiography at 3T versus digital subtraction angiography in the follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with detachable coils. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:1349–56

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
43. 43.↵
    1. Westerlaan HE,
    2. van der Vliet AM,
    3. Hew JM,
    4. et al

    . Time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography in the follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils. Neuroradiology 2005;47:622–29

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    1. Gauvrit JY,
    2. Leclerc X,
    3. Caron S,
    4. et al

    . Intracranial aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils: imaging follow-up with contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Stroke 2006;37:1033–37

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
45. 45.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Delcourt C,
    3. Bouquigny F,
    4. et al

    . Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms selectively treated with coils: prospective evaluation of contrast-enhanced MR angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:744–49

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
46. 46.↵
    1. Saguchi T,
    2. Murayama Y,
    3. Ishibashi T,
    4. et al

    . Efficacy of 3-D reconstructed time of flight MRA follow-up of the embolized cerebral aneurysms. Intervent Neuroradiol 2006;12(Suppl 1):45–48
47. 47.↵
    1. de Gast AN,
    2. Sprengers ME,
    3. van Rooij WJ,
    4. et al

    . Long-term 3T MR angiography follow-up after therapeutic occlusion of the internal carotid artery to detect possible de novo aneurysm formation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:508–10

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
48. 48.↵
    1. Deutschmann HA,
    2. Augustin M,
    3. Simbrunner J,
    4. et al

    . Diagnostic accuracy of 3D time-of-flight MR angiography compared with digital subtraction angiography for follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms: influence of aneurysm size. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:628–34

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
49. 49.↵
    1. Lubicz B,
    2. Levivier M,
    3. Sadeghi N,
    4. et al

    . Immediate intracranial aneurysm occlusion after embolization with detachable coils: a comparison between MR angiography and intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography. J Neuroradiol 2007;34:190–97

    CrossRefPubMed
50. 50.↵
    1. Poncyljusz W,
    2. Czechowski J,
    3. Corr P,
    4. et al

    . MR-angiography as a method for evaluating endovascular coiled cerebral aneurysms. Med Sci Monit 2007;13(Suppl 1):59–64

    PubMed
51. 51.↵
    1. Wallace RC,
    2. Karis JP,
    3. Partovi S,
    4. et al

    . Noninvasive imaging of treated cerebral aneurysms, part I: MR angiographic follow-up of coiled aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1001–08

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
52. 52.↵
    1. Wong JH,
    2. Mitha AP,
    3. Willson M,
    4. et al

    . Assessment of brain aneurysms by using high-resolution magnetic resonance angiography after endovascular coil delivery. J Neurosurg 2007;107:283–89

    PubMedWeb of Science
53. 53.↵
    1. Agid R,
    2. Willinsky RA,
    3. Lee SK,
    4. et al

    . Characterization of aneurysm remnants after endovascular treatment: contrast-enhanced MR angiography versus catheter digital subtraction angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1570–74

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
54. 54.↵
    1. Buhk JH,
    2. Kallenberg K,
    3. Mohr A,
    4. et al

    . No advantage of time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography at 3 Tesla compared to 1.5 Tesla in the follow-up after endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms. Neuroradiology 2008;50:855–61

    CrossRefPubMed
55. 55.↵
    1. Dupre S,
    2. Coulthard A

    . Follow up of coiled intracranial aneurysms with standard resolution and higher resolution magnetic resonance angiography. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2008;52:57–63

    PubMed
56. 56.↵
    1. Gauvrit JY,
    2. Caron S,
    3. Taschner CA,
    4. et al

    . Intracranial aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils: long-term imaging follow-up with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography. J Neurosurg 2008;108:443–49

    CrossRefPubMed
57. 57.↵
    1. Hiratsuka Y,
    2. Miki H,
    3. Kiriyama I,
    4. et al

    . Diagnosis of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: 3T MR angiography versus 64-channel multi-detector row CT angiography. Magn Reson Med Sci 2008;7:169–78

    CrossRefPubMed
58. 58.↵
    1. Khan R,
    2. Wallace RC,
    3. Fiorella DJ

    . Magnetic resonance angiographic imaging follow-up of treated intracranial aneurysms. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2008;19:231–39

    PubMed
59. 59.↵
    1. Lubicz B,
    2. Neugroschl C,
    3. Collignon L,
    4. et al

    . Is digital substraction angiography still needed for the follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by embolisation with detachable coils? Neuroradiology 2008;50:841–48

    CrossRefPubMed
60. 60.↵
    1. Ramgren B,
    2. Siemund R,
    3. Cronqvist M,
    4. et al

    . Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with detachable coils: comparison of 3D inflow MRA at 3T and 1.5T and contrast-enhanced MRA at 3T with DSA. Neuroradiology 2008;50:947–54

    CrossRefPubMed
61. 61.↵
    1. Urbach H,
    2. Dorenbeck U,
    3. Von Falkenhausen M,
    4. et al

    . Three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography at 3 T compared to digital subtraction angiography in the follow-up of ruptured and coiled intracranial aneurysms: a prospective study. Neuroradiology 2008;50:383–89

    CrossRefPubMed
62. 62.↵
    1. Wikstrom J,
    2. Ronne-Engstrom E,
    3. Gal G,
    4. et al

    . Three-dimensional time-of-flight (3D TOF) magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and contrast-enhanced MRA of intracranial aneurysms treated with platinum coils. Acta Radiol 2008;49:190–96

    FREE Full Text
63. 63.↵
    1. Buhk JH,
    2. Kallenberg K,
    3. Mohr A,
    4. et al

    . Evaluation of angiographic computed tomography in the follow-up after endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms: a comparative study with DSA and TOF-MRA. Eur Radiol 2009;19:430–36

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
64. 64.↵
    1. Ferre JC,
    2. Carsin-Nicol B,
    3. Morandi X,
    4. et al

    . Time-of-flight MR angiography at 3 T versus digital subtraction angiography in the imaging follow-up of 51 intracranial aneurysms treated with coils. Eur J Radiol 2009;72:365–69

    CrossRefPubMed
65. 65.↵
    1. Gallas S,
    2. Januel AC,
    3. Pasco A,
    4. et al

    . Long-term follow-up of 1036 cerebral aneurysms treated by bare coils: a multicentric cohort treated between 1998 and 2003. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1986–92

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
66. 66.↵
    1. Kau T,
    2. Gasser J,
    3. Celedin S,
    4. et al

    . MR angiographic follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with detachable coils: evaluation of a blood-pool contrast medium. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1524–30

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
67. 67.↵
    1. Monninghoff C,
    2. Maderwald S,
    3. Theysohn JM,
    4. et al

    . Evaluation of intracranial aneurysms with 7 T versus 1.5 T time-of-flight MR angiography: initial experience. Rofo 2009;181:16–23

    PubMed
68. 68.↵
    1. Sprengers ME,
    2. Schaafsma JD,
    3. van Rooij WJ,
    4. et al

    . Evaluation of the occlusion status of coiled intracranial aneurysms with MR angiography at 3T: is contrast enhancement necessary? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1665–71

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
69. 69.↵
    1. Bakker NA,
    2. Westerlaan HE,
    3. Metzemaekers JD,
    4. et al

    . Feasibility of magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) follow-up as the primary imaging modality after coiling of intracranial aneurysms. Acta Radiol 2010;51:226–32

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
70. 70.↵
    1. Kaufmann TJ,
    2. Huston IJ,
    3. Cloft HJ,
    4. et al

    . 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 2010;31:912–18

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
71. 71.↵
    1. Schaafsma JD,
    2. Velthuis BK,
    3. Majoie CB,
    4. et al

    . Intracranial aneurysms treated with coil placement: test characteristics of follow-up MR angiography: multicenter study. Radiology 2010;256:209–18

    CrossRefPubMed
72. 72.↵
    1. Shankar JJS,
    2. Lum C,
    3. Parikh N,
    4. et al

    . Long-term prospective follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with endovascular coiling using contrast-enhanced MR angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:1211–15

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
73. 73.↵
    1. Tailor J,
    2. Goetz P,
    3. Chandrashekar H,
    4. et al

    . Stability of ruptured intracranial aneurysms treated with detachable coils: is delayed follow-up angiography warranted? Br J Neurosurg 2010;24:405–09

    CrossRefPubMed
74. 74.↵
    1. Nakiri GS,
    2. Santos AC,
    3. Abud TG,
    4. et al

    . A comparison between magnetic resonance angiography at 3 Teslas (time-of-flight and contrast enhanced) and flat-panel digital subtraction angiography in the assessment of embolized brain aneurysms. Clinics 2011;66:641–48

    PubMed
75. 75.↵
    1. Lavoie P,
    2. Gariepy JL,
    3. Milot G,
    4. et al

    . Residual flow after cerebral aneurysm coil occlusion: diagnostic accuracy of MR angiography. Stroke 2012;43:740–46

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
76. 76.↵
    1. Berbano EP,
    2. Baxi N

    . Impact of patient selection in various study designs: identifying potential bias in clinical results. South Med J 2012;105:149–55

    PubMed
77. 77.↵
    1. Sugahara T,
    2. Korogi Y,
    3. Nakashima K,
    4. et al

    . Comparison of 2D and 3D digital subtraction angiography in evaluation of intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:1545–52

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
78. 78.↵
    1. Shi WY,
    2. Li YD,
    3. Li MH,
    4. et al

    . 3D rotational angiography with volume rendering: the utility in the detection of intracranial aneurysms. Neurol India 2010;58:908–13

    PubMed
79. 79.↵
    1. Bernstein MA,
    2. Huston J 3rd.,
    3. Lin C,
    4. et al

    . High-resolution intracranial and cervical MRA at 3.0T: technical considerations and initial experience. Magn Reson Med 2001;46:955–62

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
80. 80.↵
    1. Al-Kwifi O,
    2. Emery DJ,
    3. Wilman AH

    . Vessel contrast at three Tesla in time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography of the intracranial and carotid arteries. Magn Reson Imaging 2002;20:181–87

    CrossRefPubMed
81. 81.↵
    1. Willinek WA,
    2. Born M,
    3. Simon B,
    4. et al

    . Time-of-flight MR angiography: comparison of 3.0-T imaging and 1.5-T imaging–initial experience. Radiology 2003;229:913–20

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science