Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR is seeking candidates for the AJNR Podcast Editor. Read the position description.

Research ArticleINTERVENTIONAL

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

C. Timsit, S. Soize, A. Benaissa, C. Portefaix, J.-Y. Gauvrit and L. Pierot
American Journal of Neuroradiology September 2016, 37 (9) 1684-1689; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4791
C. Timsit
aFrom the Department of Neuroradiology (C.T., S.S., A.B., L.P.), Hôpital Maison Blanche, Université de Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for C. Timsit
S. Soize
aFrom the Department of Neuroradiology (C.T., S.S., A.B., L.P.), Hôpital Maison Blanche, Université de Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for S. Soize
A. Benaissa
aFrom the Department of Neuroradiology (C.T., S.S., A.B., L.P.), Hôpital Maison Blanche, Université de Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for A. Benaissa
C. Portefaix
bCReSTIC SIC EA3804 (C.P.), Université de Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for C. Portefaix
J.-Y. Gauvrit
cDepartment of Neuroradiology (J.-Y.G.), Hôpital Pontchaillou, Rennes, France
dUnité VISAGES U746 INSERM-INRIA (J.-Y.G.), IRISA UMR CNRS 6074, University of Rennes, Rennes, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for J.-Y. Gauvrit
L. Pierot
aFrom the Department of Neuroradiology (C.T., S.S., A.B., L.P.), Hôpital Maison Blanche, Université de Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for L. Pierot
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Imaging follow-up at 3T of intracranial aneurysms treated with the WEB Device has not been evaluated yet. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of 3D–time-of-flight MRA and contrast-enhanced MRA at 3T against DSA, as the criterion standard, for the follow-up of aneurysms treated with the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June 2011 to December 2014, patients treated with the WEB in our institution, then followed for ≥6 months after treatment by MRA at 3T (3D-TOF-MRA and contrast-enhanced MRA) and DSA within 48 hours were included. Aneurysm occlusion was assessed with a simplified 2-grade scale (adequate occlusion [total occlusion + neck remnant] versus aneurysm remnant). Interobserver and intermodality agreement was evaluated by calculating the linear weighted κ. MRA test characteristics and predictive values were calculated from a 2 × 2 contingency table, by using DSA data as the standard of reference.

RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with 26 WEB-treated aneurysms were included. The interobserver reproducibility was good with DSA (κ = 0.71) and contrast-enhanced-MRA (κ = 0.65) compared with moderate with 3D-TOF-MRA (κ = 0.47). Intermodality agreement with DSA was fair with both contrast-enhanced MRA (κ = 0.36) and 3D-TOF-MRA (κ = 0.36) for the evaluation of total occlusion. For aneurysm remnant detection, the prevalence was low (15%), on the basis of DSA, and both MRA techniques showed low sensitivity (25%), high specificity (100%), very good positive predictive value (100%), and very good negative predictive value (88%).

CONCLUSIONS: Despite acceptable interobserver reproducibility and predictive values, the low sensitivity of contrast-enhanced MRA and 3D-TOF-MRA for aneurysm remnant detection suggests that MRA is a useful screening procedure for WEB-treated aneurysms, but similar to stents and flow diverters, DSA remains the criterion standard for follow-up.

ABBREVIATIONS:

CE
contrast-enhanced
DL
Dual-Layer
EV
Enhanced-Visualization
SL
Single-Layer
SLS
Single-Layer Sphere
WEB
Woven EndoBridge

Endovascular treatment is now the first-line treatment for the management of ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms.1⇓⇓–4 However, the limitations of standard coiling for complex aneurysms (large, wide-neck, or developed in a bifurcation) have contributed to the development of new endovascular approaches, including balloon-assisted coiling, stent-assisted coiling, flow diversion, and flow disruption.5

The Woven EndoBridge (WEB) aneurysm embolization system (Sequent Medical, Aliso Viejo, California) is an intrasaccular device designed to disrupt the intra-aneurysmal flow at the level of the neck.6,7 Initial experience with the WEB–Dual-Layer (DL) showed the clinical utility of this device in wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms with high technical success and low acute morbidity and mortality.6⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–16 Several WEB devices are now available, including Single-Layer (WEB-SL), Single-Layer Sphere (WEB-SLS), and WEB-DL subtypes.12,13 Recently, Enhanced-Visualization (EV) versions were developed to improve fluoroscopic visualization of the devices during treatment.

Because of the potential risk of aneurysm recanalization after endovascular treatment, regular imaging follow-up is recommended. Digital subtraction angiography is the criterion standard for the follow-up of intracranial aneurysms after endovascular treatment but has some disadvantages, including potential neurologic complications, iodinated contrast injection, and radiation exposure. With the goal of avoiding DSA drawbacks, several MR angiography techniques have been tested to follow intracranial aneurysms. 3D-TOF-MRA and contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) at 3T are appropriate techniques for the follow-up of coiled aneurysms but have some limitations for the aneurysms treated with stents or flow diverters.17⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–23 Because the WEB is a relatively new device, the value of 3D-TOF-MRA and CE-MRA for the follow-up of WEB-treated intracranial aneurysms has been evaluated in a small number of patients at 1.5T.24

The aim of this single-center prospective study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-TOF-MRA and CE-MRA at 3T against DSA, as the criterion standard, for the evaluation of aneurysm occlusion after WEB treatment.

Materials and Methods

Study Population

Institutional review board approval was obtained, and informed consent was waived according to the design of the study. The present study complies with the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy.25 Between June 2011 and December 2014, consecutive patients treated at the Universitary Hospital of Reims with the WEB were prospectively included in a data base. Patients treated with the WEB and followed for ≥6 months after treatment with both MRA and DSA were included retrospectively. Additional inclusion criteria were the following: patients older than 18 years of age treated with the WEB; followed with both MRA techniques (3D-TOF-MRA and CE-MRA) at 3T and DSA, with MRA and DSA being performed within <48 hours.

To avoid redundant data, in case of multiple MRA or DSA examinations, we used only the last examination.

Imaging Technique for Intra-Arterial DSA

DSA was performed with a biplane angiographic system (Axiom Artis dBA; Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). Using transfemoral catheterization, we performed selective injections of the internal carotid artery or vertebral artery according to the aneurysm location.

Anteroposterior and lateral working view standard projections were obtained with an additional 3D rotational angiography sequence. For the ICA, 8 mL of nonionic contrast agent (iodixanol, Visipaque; GE Healthcare, Piscataway, New Jersey) was injected with a velocity of 4 mL/s. For the vertebral artery, 8–10 mL was injected with a velocity of 4–5 mL/s.

Imaging Technique for MRA

MRA examinations were performed at 3T (Achieva; Philips Healthcare, Best, the Netherlands). Examinations were performed with the following parameters: For 3D-TOF-MRA: TE, 3.45 ms; TR, 18 ms; flip angle, 20°; total acquisition time, 4:59 minutes; number of sections, 140; section thickness, 0.55 mm; FOV, 210 mm; rectangular FOV, 90%; acquisition matrix, 464; reconstruction matrix, 512; reconstructed voxel size, 0.41 × 0.41 × 0.55 mm. For the CE-MRA, the parameters were TE, 1.96 ms; TR, 5.4 ms; flip angle, 30°; total acquisition time, 52 seconds; number of sections, 110; section thickness, 0.5 mm; FOV, 210 mm; rectangular FOV, 85%; acquisition matrix, 480; reconstruction matrix, 512; reconstructed voxel size, 0.41 × 0.41 × 0.50 mm. CE-MRA randomly sampled the central k-space during venous injection of a gadolinium-based contrast agent (gadoterate meglumine, Dotarem; Guerbet, Aulnay-sous-Bois, France). A bolus of 20 mL was used, followed by 30 mL of saline with a scopic-based detection of the bolus (phase-contrast survey).

Data Collection

Clinical and anatomic data regarding the patient (sex, age) and aneurysm (number, localization, size, aneurysm status) were collected. The interval time between aneurysm treatment and anatomic evaluation was also collected. Aneurysm location was classified into 4 groups: anterior cerebral artery/anterior communicating artery, ICA, middle cerebral artery, and posterior circulation/vertebrobasilar artery. We recorded WEB-DL, SL, SLS, and/or EV.

Data Analysis

All examinations (DSA and MRA) were anonymized by different-number random assignment by series. All images were independently evaluated in random order by 2 interventional neuroradiologists (both with >20 years' experience). Then, in case of disagreement, consensus was found between the 2 radiologists. DSA, 3D-TOF-MRA, and CE-MRA were evaluated separately without knowledge of the MRA or DSA examination results. The pretreatment DSA was withheld, but the location of the aneurysms to be evaluated was provided to the readers. For both 3D-TOF-MRA and CE-MRA, source images and maximum-intensity-projection reconstructions were analyzed. Aneurysm occlusion was evaluated by using a 3-grade scale (total occlusion, neck remnant, and aneurysm remnant).26 A simplified 2-grade scale was used for statistical analysis: adequate occlusion (total occlusion and neck remnant) and aneurysm remnant.

Statistical Analysis

Quantitative variables are reported as extremes, mean ± SD, and median (interquartile range), while qualitative variables are reported as number and percentage. The κ statistic was used to evaluate interobserver and intermodality agreement for each technique. The interpretation of κ was done according to Landis and Koch.27 Using the consensus evaluation of intra-arterial DSA as a reference test to evaluate the degree of aneurysm occlusion, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value for 3D-TOF-MRA and CE-MRA. All analyses were performed by using MedCalc for Windows, Version 14.12.0 (MedCalc Software, Mariakerke, Belgium).

Results

Study Population

Twenty-six of the 36 patients treated with the WEB were included (age extremes, 34–78 years; mean age, 55 ± 10 years; median age, 57 years; interquartile range, 48–61 years) including 22 women (85%) and 4 men (15%). Ten patients were not included for the following reasons: Six did not have DSA follow-up at the time of data collection, 1 died after treatment, and 3 refused MRA follow-up. The set of imaging data (3D-TOF-MRA, CE-MRA, and DSA) was acquired between 6 and 15 months after the endovascular treatment (mean, 9.2 ± 3.9 months; median, 9 months; interquartile range, 6–13 months). Each patient had 1 aneurysm treated with the WEB. Detailed characteristics of the aneurysms are shown in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1:

Patient and aneurysm characteristics (n = 26)a

Among the aneurysms treated with the WEB, 20 (77%) were treated with the WEB alone; 5 (19%), with coils and the WEB; and 1 (4%), with the WEB and a stent. We used WEBs in the following manner: 14 DLs, 8 SLs (including 5 EVs), and 4 SLSs (including 1 EV).

Interobserver Agreement

When evaluating aneurysm occlusion by using the 3-grade scale, the 2 observers were in agreement in 21 of 26 DSAs (81%), 21 of 26 3D-TOF-MRAs (81%), and 25 of 26 CE-MRAs (96%), resulting in good interobserver agreement for DSA (κ = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.46–0.93), excellent agreement for CE-MRA (κ = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.76–1.00), and moderate agreement for 3D-TOF-MRA (κ = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.30–0.88). When evaluating aneurysm occlusion by using the simplified 2-grade scale (adequate occlusion versus aneurysm remnant), the 2 observers were in agreement in 24 of 26 DSAs (92%), 24 of 26 3D-TOF-MRAs (92%), and 25 of 26 CE-MRAs (96%), resulting in good interobserver agreement for DSA (κ = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.32–1.00) and CE-MRA (κ = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.02–1.00) and moderate interobserver agreement for 3D-TOF-MRA (κ = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.13–1.00). Despite good raw agreement for all modalities, lower κ values were obtained by 3D-TOF by using the 3-grade occlusion scale and by 3D-TOF and CE-MRA by using the simplified 2-grade scale. This was due to a lower number of aneurysm remnants detected by 3D-TOF-MRA and CE-MRA. Consequently, 1 disagreement for MRA created more imbalance between well-occluded aneurysms versus aneurysm remnants than with DSA, and the corresponding κ dropped more.

Intermodality Agreement

The results of aneurysm occlusion with the Raymond Scale and the simplified 2-grade scale for DSA, 3D-TOF-MRA, and CE-MRA are shown in Table 2. After a consensus reading, by using the simplified 2-grade scale, 3D-TOF-MRA and CE-MRA showed identical results. Both MRAs agreed with DSA in 23 of 26 aneurysms (89%). Disagreement occurred in 3 aneurysm remnants on DSA that were not detected with both MRAs (3 false-negative cases): 2 aneurysm remnants classified as neck remnants from both MRA sequences and 1 aneurysm with complete circulation within the WEB-SL device undetected by both MRAs (Fig 1). 3D-TOF-MRA and CE-MRA showed fair agreement with DSA regarding aneurysm remnant depiction (κ = 0.36; 95% CI, −0.16;0.88, for both techniques).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2:

Aneurysm occlusion evaluation (n = 26)

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

A 78-year-old man with an anterior communicating artery aneurysm treated by the WEB-SL with enhanced visualization. Follow-up images were acquired 7 months after endovascular treatment. 3D-TOF-MRA and CE-MRA were performed 24 hours after DSA. DSA frontal projection (A) and 3D reconstruction in an embolization incidence (B) show aneurysm remnants with complete circulation within the device, while 3D-TOF-MRA and CE-MRA MIP reconstructions (C and D) show total occlusion.

Diagnostic Accuracies for Aneurysm Remnant Depiction

With the simplified 2-grade scale for aneurysm-remnant detection, prevalence was low (15%) on the basis of DSA, and both MRA techniques showed low sensitivity (25%), high specificity (100%), very good positive predictive value (100%), and very good negative predictive value (88%).

Analysis by the Type of WEB

Among the 14 patients treated with the WEB-DL, with a simplified 2-grade scale, consensus readings agreed for 13 aneurysms (including 12 adequate occlusions and 1 aneurysm remnant) and disagreed for 1 aneurysm remnant on DSA, classified as adequate occlusion with both MRA techniques. Among the 12 patients treated with the WEB-SL or SLS (including 6 EVs), with the simplified 2-grade scale, consensus readings agreed for 10 aneurysms (4 EVs and 6 non-EVs) and disagreed for 2 aneurysm remnants (2 EVs) on DSA classified as adequate occlusion with both MRA techniques.

Discussion

In our series of patients with aneurysms treated with the WEB, DSA was superior to CE-MRA and 3D-TOF-MRA for the evaluation of aneurysm remnants, and both MRA techniques had equivalent accuracy (κ = 0.36); however, the interobserver reproducibility was higher with CE-MRA (κ = 0.65) than with 3D-TOF-MRA (κ = 0.47).

WEB treatment of wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms induces intra-aneurysmal thrombosis. Long-term anatomic results after WEB treatment are available,28,29 and several follow-up imaging modalities may be used, such as DSA, MRA, or CTA. If it is now accepted that the artifacts produced by coils do not hamper MRA interpretation,17⇓⇓⇓–21 it is important to understand the accuracy and reliability of MRA techniques for WEB-treated aneurysms.

The WEB has a different material composition (nickel-titanium-platinum composite wires with radio-opaque platinum markers) compared with coils but is similar to intracranial stents and flow diverters. Despite recent progress in neurovascular device manufacturing, MR imaging of a stent or flow-diverter lumen remains difficult due to a combination of magnetic susceptibility artifacts and the Faraday cage effect. Given the material similarities to neurovascular stents and flow diverters, the above MR imaging effects may be expected with the WEB.

In terms of magnetic susceptibility, the WEB is similar to most commercially available neurovascular stents and flow diverters that are made from nonferromagnetic alloys such as nitinol with either platinum alloy markers or platinum alloy wires for radio-opacity. Of note, a minority of components of these alloys or impurities in the alloy itself are thought to disturb the homogeneity of the magnetic field and cause an alteration of the resonance condition of the protons in the vicinity of the implant, thus leading to intravoxel dephasing with an attendant loss of signal.30 These susceptibility artifacts that prevent visualization of the device lumen may be variable, depending on the materials.31 This phenomenon may explain, in part, the loss of signal that prevents the physician from seeing the interior of the WEB on MRA sequences. WEBs are now available with composite nitinol/platinum wires that improve radio-opacity but likely have the same magnetic susceptibility profile as intracranial stents and flow diverters with the same or similar materials.

Given that neurovascular stents and flow diverters are constructed of electrically conductive materials, they likely provide a Faraday cage or Faraday shield effect with MR imaging. The braids prevent the proton spins of water molecules in the stent lumen from being flipped or excited. This phenomenon depends on the wave length of the radiation, the size of the mesh in the cage, the conductivity of the materials, thickness, and other variables.32,33 Unlike stainless steel or cobalt alloy stents, nitinol stents are relatively more sensitive to radiofrequency artifacts than to susceptibility artifacts.34 If one drew a parallel between the WEB and stents/flow diverters of equivalent composition, it seems reasonable that there is also a Faraday shield effect with the WEB and that it contributes to loss of signal from the interior.

The same MRA parameters for stent evaluation were used without optimization for the WEB evaluation. However, it has been shown that optimized sequences can minimize stent-induced artifacts. Using a T1-weighted spin-echo pulse sequence may produce artifacts smaller than those of fast-spoiled gradient-recalled echo pulse sequences, shorter TEs can also decrease stent artifacts, and contrast-enhanced MRA may help to better delineate the stent lumen.30 Also, for nitinol stents, the visualization of the stented segment can be at least partially overcome by using a higher flip angle.35⇓–37 Recently, a “silent scan” technique combining ultrashort TEs (to minimize the phase dispersion of the labeled blood flow signal in the voxel) and arterial spin-labeling showed promising improvement of flow visualization in an intracranial stent.38 This technique may theoretically improve visualization within the WEB device and will deserve further dedicated studies.

There are few data in the literature about noninvasive methods for WEB follow-up. MRA was evaluated in a small number of patients at 1.5T, while CTA has not been reported.24 Mine et al24 compared DSA and CE-MRA for the follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with the WEB-DL and found a better intertechnique agreement (mean κ = 0.67) than in the present study (κ = 0.36). Despite these results, 2/5 (40%) aneurysm remnants were not detected with CE-MRA in their study, while 3/4 (75%) were not detected in ours; these findings underlie the sensitivity limitations of MRA compared with DSA for aneurysm remnant.

There are differences between the 2 studies. Mine et al24 evaluated 16 aneurysms treated with the WEB-DL, by using a 1.5T device, while we used a 3T magnet, which has been reported to be better for the follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms20 but may have potentially enhanced artifacts. In addition, the time between CE-MRA and DSA was longer in their study (2 months); this difference could have introduced modifications between the 2 examinations. They chose to evaluate only CE-MRA, while our study also provided data on the value of 3D-TOF-MRA. Finally, they classified the occlusion according to the Raymond classification scale,26 while we decided to use a simplified 2-grade scale closer to our clinical practice. At first sight, one can infer that there will be more disagreement by using a 3-grade scale; nevertheless, the 2-grade scale by gathering completely occluded aneurysms and those with neck remnants can influence strongly the intermodality agreement when several disagreements between neck remnant and aneurysm remnant occur. This difference may sometimes be subjective and related to small differences in measurements. Specific occlusion grading scales have been proposed for aneurysms treated with the WEB such as the WEB occlusion scale. The WEB occlusion scale was approved and validated as the grading scale for the 150 patients in the US WEB-IT Clinical Study and was correlated to histology in an 80-subject preclinical study.39,40

Our study has several limitations. First, a small number of patients were included. Second, the heterogeneity of endovascular implants (different types of WEB and adjunction, in some cases, of stents or coils) might have affected MRA image quality. Despite disagreement occurring in only 1 of the patients with an adjunctive device (WEB + 2 coils) and the 2 readers not noticing dramatic modifications between different devices, the adjunctive device may have been the source of supplemental artifacts and remains to be evaluated in a larger series of patients. Third, we used standardized MRA stent parameters, and optimization of these parameters for the WEB may reduce artifacts. Future studies of CTA and optimized MRA for WEB follow-up are necessary. Also, the difference between DSA standard views and strict axial and coronal MIP views for MRA images possibly affected the readers' ratings between the neck and aneurysm remnants, underlying the importance of careful reading of axial source images.23

Conclusions

In our series, despite acceptable interobserver reproducibility and predictive values, the low sensitivity of CE-MRA and 3D-TOF-MRA for aneurysm remnant detection suggests that MRA is a useful screening procedure for WEB-treated aneurysms, but similar to stents and flow diverters, DSA remains the criterion standard for follow-up. Regarding improving noninvasive follow-up of WEB-treated aneurysms, further studies will have to focus on the analysis of optimized MRA techniques in larger cohorts of patients treated with homogeneous WEB devices.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures: Laurent Pierot—RELATED: Consulting Fee or Honorarium: Sequent Medical; UNRELATED: Consultancy: Blockade Medical, Medtronic, MicroVention, Neuravi.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Molyneux AJ,
    2. Kerr RS,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Cognard C,
    2. Pierot L,
    3. 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
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Spelle L,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Cognard C,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. 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.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Liebig T,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Lubicz B,
    2. Mine B,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Klisch J,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Caroff J,
    2. Mihalea C,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Lubicz B,
    2. Klisch J,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Papagiannaki C,
    2. Spelle L,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Moret J,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Gherasim DN,
    2. Gory B,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Costalat V,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Moret J,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Spelle L,
    3. 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.↵
    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 doi:10.1148/radiology.219.1.r01mr06108 pmid:11274544
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. van Amerongen MJ,
    2. Boogaarts HD,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Portefaix C,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Portefaix C,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Delcourt C,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Agid R,
    2. Schaaf M,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Attali J,
    2. Benaissa A,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Mine B,
    2. Tancredi I,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Bossuyt PM,
    2. Reitsma JB,
    3. 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
    CrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Guilbert F,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Landis JR,
    2. Koch GG
    . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74 doi:10.2307/2529310 pmid:843571
    CrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Klisch J,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Sivan-Hoffmann R,
    2. Gory B,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Klemm T,
    2. Duda S,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Lenhart M,
    2. Völk M,
    3. 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
    CrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Acton QA
    . Monovalent Cations–Advances in Research and Application. Atlanta: ScholarlyEditions; 2013:407–08
  33. 33.↵
    1. Camacho CR,
    2. Plewes DB,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Hähnel S,
    2. Nguyen-Trong TH,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Bartels LW,
    2. Bakker CJ,
    3. 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
    CrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Choi JW,
    2. Roh HG,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Meyer JM,
    2. Buecker A,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Irie R,
    2. Suzuki M,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Fiorella D,
    2. Arthur A,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Rouchaud A,
    2. Brinjikji W,
    3. 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
  • Received November 6, 2015.
  • Accepted after revision February 28, 2016.
  • © 2016 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 37 (9)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 37, Issue 9
1 Sep 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
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.
Contrast-Enhanced and Time-of-Flight MRA at 3T Compared with DSA for the Follow-Up of Intracranial Aneurysms Treated with the WEB Device
(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.
Cite this article
C. Timsit, S. Soize, A. Benaissa, C. Portefaix, J.-Y. Gauvrit, L. Pierot
Contrast-Enhanced and Time-of-Flight MRA at 3T Compared with DSA for the Follow-Up of Intracranial Aneurysms Treated with the WEB Device
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2016, 37 (9) 1684-1689; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4791

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Contrast-Enhanced and Time-of-Flight MRA at 3T Compared with DSA for the Follow-Up of Intracranial Aneurysms Treated with the WEB Device
C. Timsit, S. Soize, A. Benaissa, C. Portefaix, J.-Y. Gauvrit, L. Pierot
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2016, 37 (9) 1684-1689; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4791
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Lateral Compression Manipulation: A Simple Approach for Sizing Taller-Than-Wide Intracranial Aneurysms with the Woven EndoBridge Device
  • Aneurysm treatment with the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device in the combined population of two prospective, multicenter series: 5-year follow-up
  • Determinants of cerebral aneurysm occlusion after embolization with the WEB device: a single-institution series of 215 cases with angiographic follow-up
  • Aneurysm treatment with the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device in the combined population of two prospective, multicenter series: 5-year follow-up
  • Determinants of cerebral aneurysm occlusion after embolization with the WEB device: a single-institution series of 215 cases with angiographic follow-up
  • Aneurysm treatment with WEB in the cumulative population of two prospective, multicenter series: 3-year follow-up
  • Persistent Blood Flow inside the Woven EndoBridge Device More Than 6 Months after Intracranial Aneurysm Treatment: Frequency, Mechanisms, and Management--A Retrospective Single-Center Study
  • How to WEB: a practical review of methodology for the use of the Woven EndoBridge
  • MRA versus DSA for the follow-up imaging of intracranial aneurysms treated using endovascular techniques: a meta-analysis
  • Multiparametric MRI of intracranial aneurysms treated with the Woven EndoBridge (WEB): a case of Faradays cage?
  • Safety and Efficacy of Aneurysm Treatment with the WEB: Results of the WEBCAST 2 Study
  • Crossref (41)
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • Safety and Efficacy of Aneurysm Treatment with the WEB: Results of the WEBCAST 2 Study
    L. Pierot, I. Gubucz, J.H. Buhk, M. Holtmannspötter, D. Herbreteau, L. Stockx, L. Spelle, J. Berkefeld, A.-C. Januel, A. Molyneux, J.V. Byrne, J. Fiehler, I. Szikora, X. Barreau
    American Journal of Neuroradiology 2017 38 6
  • How to WEB: a practical review of methodology for the use of the Woven EndoBridge
    Nitin Goyal, Daniel Hoit, Julie DiNitto, Lucas Elijovich, David Fiorella, Laurent Pierot, Saleh Lamin, Laurent Spelle, Isil Saatci, Saru Cekirge, Adam S Arthur
    Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2020 12 5
  • Aneurysm treatment with WEB in the cumulative population of two prospective, multicenter series: 3-year follow-up
    Laurent Pierot, Istvan Szikora, Xavier Barreau, Markus Holtmannspoetter, Laurent Spelle, Denis Herbreteau, Jens Fiehler, Vincent Costalat, Joachim Klisch, Anne-Christine Januel, Werner Weber, Thomas Liebig, Luc Stockx, Joachim Berkefeld, Jacques Moret, Andy Molyneux, James Byrne
    Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2021 13 4
  • Aneurysm Treatment With Woven EndoBridge in the Cumulative Population of 3 Prospective, Multicenter Series: 2-Year Follow-Up
    Laurent Pierot, Jacques Moret, Xavier Barreau, Istvan Szikora, Denis Herbreteau, Francis Turjman, Markus Holtmannspötter, Anne-Christine Januel, Vincent Costalat, Jens Fiehler, Joachim Klisch, Jean-Yves Gauvrit, Werner Weber, Hubert Desal, Stéphane Velasco, Thomas Liebig, Luc Stockx, Joachim Berkefeld, Andrew Molyneux, James V Byrne, Laurent Spelle
    Neurosurgery 2020 87 2
  • Systematic Review of Woven EndoBridge for Wide-Necked Bifurcation Aneurysms: Complications, Adequate Occlusion Rate, Morbidity, and Mortality
    Xianli Lv, Yupeng Zhang, Weijian Jiang
    World Neurosurgery 2018 110
  • Aneurysm treatment with the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device in the combined population of two prospective, multicenter series: 5-year follow-up
    Laurent Pierot, Istvan Szikora, Xavier Barreau, Markus Holtmannspoetter, Laurent Spelle, Joachim Klisch, Denis Herbreteau, Vincent Costalat, Jens Fiehler, Anne-Christine Januel, Thomas Liebig, Luc Stockx, Werner Weber, Joachim Berkefeld, Jacques Moret, Andy Molyneux, James Byrne
    Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2023 15 6
  • Effectiveness, Safety and Risk Factors of Woven EndoBridge Device in the Treatment of Wide-Neck Intracranial Aneurysms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Su-Ming Zhang, Lun-Xin Liu, Peng-Wei Ren, Xiao-Dong Xie, Jia Miao
    World Neurosurgery 2020 136
  • MRA versus DSA for the follow-up imaging of intracranial aneurysms treated using endovascular techniques: a meta-analysis
    Syed Uzair Ahmed, J Mocco, Xiangnan Zhang, Michael Kelly, Amish Doshi, Kambiz Nael, Reade De Leacy
    Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2019 11 10
  • The Woven Endobridge Device for Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms: A Systematic Review
    Ivo S. Muskens, Joeky T. Senders, Hormuzdiyar H. Dasenbrock, Timothy R.S. Smith, Marike L.D. Broekman
    World Neurosurgery 2017 98
  • Determinants of cerebral aneurysm occlusion after embolization with the WEB device: a single-institution series of 215 cases with angiographic follow-up
    Jonathan Cortese, Jildaz Caroff, Vanessa Chalumeau, Sophie Gallas, Léon Ikka, Jacques Moret, Federico Sabuzi, Septimiu Daniel Popescu, Augustin Ozanne, Lamiae Grimaldi, Cristian Mihalea, Laurent Spelle
    Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2023 15 5

More in this TOC Section

  • SAVE vs. Solumbra Techniques for Thrombectomy
  • Contrast-Induced Encephalopathy after NeuroIR
  • CT Perfusion&Reperfusion in Acute Ischemic Stroke
Show more Interventional

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

Special Collections

  • AJNR Awards
  • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
  • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
  • Photon-Counting CT
  • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire