A Prospective Trial of 3T and 1.5T Time-of-Flight and Contrast-Enhanced MR Angiography in the Follow-Up of Coiled Intracranial Aneurysms

References

1. 1.↵
   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
2. 2.↵
   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
3. 3.↵
   1. Renowden SA,
   2. Benes V,
   3. Bradley M,
   4. et al

   . Detachable coil embolisation of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a single center study, a decade experience. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2009;111:179–88. Epub 2008 Nov 13

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

   . 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;366:809–17

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Kaufmann TJ,
   2. Huston J 3rd.,
   3. Mandrekar JN,
   4. et al

   . Complications of diagnostic cerebral angiography: evaluation of 19,826 consecutive patients. Radiology 2007;243:812–19

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   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
7. 7.↵
   1. Majoie CB,
   2. Sprengers ME,
   3. van Rooij WJ,
   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
8. 8.↵
   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
9. 9.↵
   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
10. 10.↵
    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
11. 11.↵
    1. Ferre JC,
    2. Carsin-Nicol B,
    3. Morandi X,
    4. et al

    . Time-of-flight MR angiography at 3T versus digital subtraction angiography in the imaging follow-up of 51 intracranial aneurysms treated with coils. Eur J Radiol 2009;72:365–69 Epub 2008 Sep 21

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    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
13. 13.↵
    1. Wong GK,
    2. Yu SC,
    3. Poon WS

    . Clinical and angiographic outcome of intracranial aneurysms treated with Matrix detachable coils in Chinese patients. Surg Neurol 2007;67:122–26

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    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
15. 15.↵
    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
16. 16.↵
    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

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Anzalone N,
    2. Scomazzoni F,
    3. Cirillo M,
    4. et al

    . Follow-up of coiled cerebral aneurysms: comparison of three-dimensional time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography at 3 Tesla with three-dimensional time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography at 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2008;43:559–67

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Anzalone N,
    2. Scomazzoni F,
    3. Cirillo M,
    4. et al

    . Follow-up of coiled cerebral aneurysms at 3T: comparison of 3D time-of-flight MR angiography and contrast-enhanced MR angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1530–36

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    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
20. 20.↵
    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
21. 21.↵
    1. Renowden SA,
    2. Koumellis P,
    3. Benes V,
    4. et al

    . Retreatment of previously embolized cerebral aneurysms: the risk of further coil embolization does not negate the advantage of the initial embolization. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1401–04

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    1. Gibbs GF,
    2. Huston J 3rd.,
    3. Bernstein MA,
    4. et al

    . Improved image quality of intracranial aneurysms: 3.0-T versus 1.5-T time-of-flight MR angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:84–87

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    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
24. 24.↵
    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. Epub 2009 Jul 23

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    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
26. 26.↵
    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
27. 27.↵
    1. Walker MT,
    2. Tsai J,
    3. Parish T,
    4. et al

    . MR angiographic evaluation of platinum coil packs at 1.5T and 3T: an in vitro assessment of artifact production—technical note. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:848–53

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    1. Bernstein MA,
    2. Huston J 3rd.,
    3. Ward HA

    . Imaging artifacts at 3.0T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;24:735–46

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Kaufmann TJ,
    2. Ding YH,
    3. Bernstein MA,
    4. et al

    . Susceptibility artifact from endovascular coils in intracranial aneurysms: an in vivo comparison at 3T and 1.5T. In: Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Neuroradiology, San Diego, California. May 6–12, 2006
30. 30.↵
    1. Ozsarlak O,
    2. Van Goethem JW,
    3. Maes M,
    4. et al

    . MR angiography of the intracranial vessels: technical aspects and clinical applications. Neuroradiology 2004; 46: 955– 72

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    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
32. 32.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. White PM,
    3. Molyneux AJ

    . Scales, agreement, outcome measures, and progress in aneurysm therapy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:501–02

    FREE Full Text
33. 33.↵
    1. Meyers PM,
    2. Schumacher HC,
    3. Higashida RT,
    4. et al

    . Reporting standards for endovascular repair of saccular intracranial cerebral aneurysms. Stroke 2009;40:e366–79

    CrossRef
34. 34.↵
    1. Cloft HJ,
    2. Kaufmann T,
    3. Kallmes DF

    . Observer agreement in the assessment of endovascular aneurysm therapy and aneurysm recurrence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:497–500

    Abstract/FREE Full Text