Contrast-Enhanced and Time-of-Flight MRA at 3T Compared with DSA for the Follow-Up of Intracranial Aneurysms Treated with the WEB Device

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Molyneux AJ,
   3. Kerr RS,
   4. Yu LM, et al

   ; International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) Collaborative Group. International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised comparison of effects on survival, dependency, seizures, rebleeding, subgroups, and aneurysm occlusion. Lancet 2005;66:809–17 pmid:16139655

   PubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Cognard C,
   3. Pierot L,
   4. Anxionnat R, et al

   ; Clarity Study Group. Results of embolization used as the first treatment choice in a consecutive nonselected population of ruptured aneurysms: clinical results of the Clarity GDC study. Neurosurgery 2011;69:837–41; discussion 842 doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182257b30 pmid:21623247

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Pierot L,
   3. Spelle L,
   4. Vitry F

   ; ATENA Investigators. Immediate clinical outcome of patients harboring unruptured intracranial aneurysms treated by endovascular approach: results of the ATENA study. Stroke 2008;39:2497–504 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.512756 pmid:18617659

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   2. Pierot L,
   3. Cognard C,
   4. Anxionnat R, et al

   ; CLARITY Investigators. Endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: factors affecting midterm quality anatomic results—analysis in a prospective, multicenter series of patients (CLARITY). AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1475–80 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3003 pmid:22517279

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   2. Pierot L,
   3. Wakhloo A

   . Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms: current status. Stroke 2013;44:2046–54 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.000733 pmid:23798560

   FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Pierot L,
   3. Liebig T,
   4. Sychra V, et al

   . Intrasaccular flow-disruption treatment of intracranial aneurysms: preliminary results of a multicenter clinical study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1232–38 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3191 pmid:22678844

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   2. Lubicz B,
   3. Mine B,
   4. Collignon L, et al

   . WEB device for endovascular treatment of wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1209–14 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3387 pmid:23292529

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Pierot L,
   3. Klisch J,
   4. Cognard C, et al

   . Endovascular WEB flow disruption in middle cerebral artery aneurysms: preliminary feasibility, clinical, and anatomical results in a multicenter study. Neurosurgery 2013;73:27–34; discussion 34–35 doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000429860.04276.c1 pmid:23615104

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Caroff J,
   3. Mihalea C,
   4. Dargento F, et al

   . Woven Endobridge (WEB) Device for endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial wide-neck aneurysms: a single-center experience. Neuroradiology 2014;56:755–61 doi:10.1007/s00234-014-1390-7 pmid:24930127

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Lubicz B,
    3. Klisch J,
    4. Gauvrit JY, et al

    . WEB-DL endovascular treatment of wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms: short- and midterm results in a European study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:432–38 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3869 pmid:24457823

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    2. Papagiannaki C,
    3. Spelle L,
    4. Januel AC, et al

    . WEB intrasaccular flow disruptor: prospective, multicenter experience in 83 patients with 85 aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:2106–11 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4028 pmid:24994823

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    2. Pierot L,
    3. Moret J,
    4. Turjman F, et al

    . WEB treatment of intracranial aneurysms: feasibility, complications, and 1-month safety results with the WEB DL and WEB SL/SLS in the French Observatory. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:922–27 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4230 pmid:25655876

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Gherasim DN,
    3. Gory B,
    4. Sivan-Hoffmann R, et al

    . Endovascular treatment of wide-neck anterior communicating artery aneurysms using WEB-DL and WEB-SL: short-term results in a multicenter study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:1150–54 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4282 pmid:25792534

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    2. Pierot L,
    3. Costalat V,
    4. Moret J, et al

    . Safety and efficacy of aneurysm treatment with WEB: results of WEBCAST study. J Neurosurg 2015;18:1–7 doi:10.3171/2015.2.JNS142634 pmid:26381253

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Pierot L,
    3. Moret J,
    4. Turjman F, et al

    . WEB treatment of intracranial aneurysms: clinical and anatomic results in the French Observatory. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:655–59 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4578 pmid:26514608

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    2. Pierot L,
    3. Spelle L,
    4. Molyneux A, et al

    ; WEBCAST and French Observatory Investigators. Clinical and anatomical follow-up in patients with aneurysms treated with WEB device: 1-year follow-up report in the cumulated population of 2 prospective, multicenter series (WEBCAST, French Observatory). Neurosurgery 2016;78:133–41 doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000001106 pmid:26552042

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Boulin A,
    3. 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 doi:10.1148/radiology.219.1.r01mr06108 pmid:11274544

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. van Amerongen MJ,
    3. Boogaarts HD,
    4. de Vries J, et al

    . MRA versus DSA for follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms: a meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:1655–61 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3700 pmid:24008171

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    2. Pierot L,
    3. Portefaix C,
    4. Gauvrit JY

    . Follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms: comparison of 3D time-of-flight MR angiography at 3T and 1.5T in a large prospective series. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:2162–66 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3124 pmid:22678846

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    2. Pierot L,
    3. Portefaix C,
    4. Boulin A, et al

    . Follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms: comparison of 3D-time-of-flight and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography at 3T in a large, prospective series. Eur Radiol 2012;22;2255–63 doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2466-6 pmid:22569997

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Pierot L,
    3. Delcourt C,
    4. Bouquigny F, 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 pmid:16611757

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    2. Agid R,
    3. Schaaf M,
    4. Farb R

    . CE-MRA for follow-up of aneurysms post stent-assisted coiling. Interv Neuroradiol 2012;18:275–83 pmid:22958765

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    2. Attali J,
    3. Benaissa A,
    4. Soize S, et al

    . Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by flow diverter: comparison of three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography (3D-TOF-MRA) and contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) sequences with digital subtraction angiography as the gold standard. J Neurointerv Surg 2016;8:81–86 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011449 pmid:25352582

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    2. Mine B,
    3. Tancredi I,
    4. Aljishi A, et al

    . Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by a WEB flow disrupter: a comparative study of DSA and contrast-enhanced MR angiography. J Neurointerv Surg 2015 May 21. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-011644 pmid:25999378

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    2. Bossuyt PM,
    3. Reitsma JB,
    4. Bruns DE, et al

    ; Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD Initiative. Radiology 2003;226:24–28 doi:10.1148/radiol.2261021292 pmid:12511664

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    2. Raymond J,
    3. Guilbert F,
    4. Weill A, et al

    . Long-term angiographic recurrences after selective endovascular treatment of aneurysms with detachable coils. Stroke 2003;34:1398–403 doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000073841.88563.E9 pmid:12775880

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    2. Landis JR,
    3. Koch GG

    . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74 doi:10.2307/2529310 pmid:843571

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Pierot L,
    3. Klisch J,
    4. Liebig T, et al

    . WEB-DL endovascular treatment of wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms: long-term results in a European series. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:2314–19 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4445 pmid:26228882

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    2. Sivan-Hoffmann R,
    3. Gory B,
    4. Riva R, et al

    . One-year angiographic follow-up after WEB-SL endovascular treatment of wide-neck bifurcation intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:2320–24 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4457 pmid:26294645

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
30. 30.↵
    2. Klemm T,
    3. Duda S,
    4. Machann J, et al

    . MR imaging in the presence of vascular stents: a systematic assessment of artifacts for various stent orientations, sequence types, and field strengths. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:606–15 pmid:11042644

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Lenhart M,
    3. Völk M,
    4. Manke C, et al

    . Stent appearance at contrast-enhanced MR angiography: in vitro examination with 14 stents. Radiology 2000;217:173–78 doi:10.1148/radiology.217.1.r00se28173 pmid:11012441

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.↵
    2. Acton QA

    . Monovalent Cations–Advances in Research and Application. Atlanta: ScholarlyEditions; 2013:407–08
33. 33.↵
    2. Camacho CR,
    3. Plewes DB,
    4. Henkelman RM

    . Nonsusceptibility artifacts due to metallic objects in MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1995;5:75–88 doi:10.1002/jmri.1880050115 pmid:7696813

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Hähnel S,
    3. Nguyen-Trong TH,
    4. Rohde S, et al

    . 3.0 Tesla contrast-enhanced MR angiography of carotid artery stents: in vitro measurements as compared with 1.5 Tesla. J Neuroradiol 2006;33:75–80 doi:10.1016/S0150-9861(06)77234-0 pmid:16733419

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Bartels LW,
    3. Bakker CJ,
    4. Viergever MA

    . Improved lumen visualization in metallic vascular implants by reducing RF artifacts. Magn Reson Med 2002;47:171–80 doi:10.1002/mrm.10004 pmid:11754456

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
36. 36.↵
    2. Choi JW,
    3. Roh HG,
    4. Moon WJ, et al

    . Optimization of MR parameters of 3D-TOF-MRA for various intracranial stents at 3.0T MRI. Neurointervention 2011;6:71–77 doi:10.5469/neuroint.2011.6.2.71 pmid:22125752

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. Meyer JM,
    3. Buecker A,
    4. Spuentrup E, et al

    . Improved in-stent magnetic resonance angiography with high flip angle excitation. Invest Radiol 2001;36:677–81 doi:10.1097/00004424-200111000-00007 pmid:11606845

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Irie R,
    3. Suzuki M,
    4. Yamamoto M, et al

    . Assessing blood flow in an intracranial stent: a feasibility study of MR angiography using a silent scan after stent-assisted coil embolization for anterior circulation aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:967–70 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4199 pmid:25523588

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
39. 39.↵
    2. Fiorella D,
    3. Arthur A,
    4. Byrne J, et al

    . Interobserver variability in the assessment of aneurysm occlusion with the WEB aneurysm embolization system. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:591–95 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011251 pmid:24984707

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
40. 40.↵
    2. Rouchaud A,
    3. Brinjikji W,
    4. Ding YH, et al

    . Evaluation of the angiographic grading scale in aneurysms treated with the WEB device in 80 rabbits: correlation with histologic evaluation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:324–29 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4527 pmid:26405081

    Abstract/FREE Full Text