Long-Term Prospective Follow-Up of Intracranial Aneurysms Treated with Endovascular Coiling Using Contrast-Enhanced MR Angiography

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Molyneux A,
   2. Kerr R,
   3. Stratton I,
   4. for the 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 trial. Lancet 2002;360:1267–74

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Molyneux AJ,
   2. Kerr RS,
   3. Yu LM,
   4. et al.,
   5. for the 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;366:809–17

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Feuerberg I,
   2. Lindquist C,
   3. Lindqvist M,
   4. et al

   . Natural history of postoperative aneurysm rests. J Neurosurg 1987;66:30–34

   PubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   1. Thornton J,
   2. Debrun GM,
   3. Aletich VA,
   4. et al

   . Follow-up angiography of intracranial aneurysms treated with endovascular placement of Guglielmi detachable coils. Neurosurgery 2002;50:239–49

   PubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Asgari S,
   2. Wanke I,
   3. Schoch B,
   4. et al

   . Recurrent hemorrhage after initially complete occlusion of intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurg Rev 2003;26:269–74

   PubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Hope JK,
   2. Byrne JV,
   3. Molyneux AJ

   . Factors influencing successful angiographic occlusion of aneurysms treated by coil embolization. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1999;20:391–99

   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. Leclerc X,
   2. Navez J,
   3. Gauvrit J,
   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
9. 9.↵
   1. Cottier J,
   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
10. 10.↵
    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
11. 11.↵
    1. Gauvrit J,
    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
12. 12.↵
    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
13. 13.↵
    1. Gauvrit J,
    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
14. 14.↵
    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
15. 15.↵
    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
16. 16.↵
    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
17. 17.↵
    1. Roy D,
    2. Milot G,
    3. Raymond J

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

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    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
19. 19.↵
    1. Dabirzadeh H,
    2. Moulton R,
    3. Lum C

    . Long-term durability of coiled cerebral aneurysms in which CTA was used as the sole imaging selection criteria for patients presenting with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Presented at: Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association of Radiologists, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 23–26, 2009
20. 20.↵
    1. Al Azri F,
    2. Santos M,
    3. Lesiuk H,
    4. et al

    . Contrast-enhanced MR angiography follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with “Neuroform” endovascular stent-assisted coiling. Presented at: Annual Meeting of American Society of Neuroradiology, Chicago, Illinois, June 9–14, 2007
21. 21.↵
    1. Broome DR

    . Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis associated with gadolinium-based contrast agents: a summary of the medical literature reporting. Eur J Radiol 2008;66:230–34

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Broome DR,
    2. Girgus MS,
    3. Baron PW,
    4. et al

    . Gadodiamide-associated nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: why radiologists should be concerned. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:586–92

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science