Outcomes of Endovascular Treatments of Aneurysms: Observer Variability and Implications for Interpreting Case Series and Planning Randomized Trials

References

1. 1.↵
   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
2. 2.↵
   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
3. 3.↵
   1. Piotin M,
   2. Spelle L,
   3. Mounayer C,
   4. et al

   . Intracranial aneurysms: treatment with bare platinum coils/aneurysm packing, complex coils, and angiographic recurrence. Radiology 2007;243:500–08

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   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
5. 5.↵
   1. White PM,
   2. Lewis SC,
   3. Gholkar A,
   4. et al

   . Hydrogel-coated coils versus bare platinum coils for the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms (HELPS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011;377:1655–62

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Molyneux AJ,
   2. Coley S,
   3. Sneade M,
   4. et al

   . Cerecyte Coil Trial: clinical outcome of endovascular coiling in patients with ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms treated with Cerecyte coils compared with bare platinum coils. Results of a prospective randomised trial. American Society of Neuroradiology Annual Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts; May 15–20, 2010
7. 7.↵
   1. Roy D,
   2. White PM,
   3. Fiorella D,
   4. et al

   . A randomized trial comparing platinum and hydrogel-coated coils in patients prone to recurrence after endovascular treatment (the PRET trial). Interven Neuroradiol 2008;14:73–84
8. 8.↵
   1. Darsaut TE,
   2. Raymond J

   , for the STAT collaborative group. The design of the Stenting in the Treatment of Aneurysms (STAT) trial. J NeuroIntervent Surg; epub 2011, June 23. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2011–010065
9. 9.↵
   1. Bankier AA,
   2. Levine D,
   3. Halpern EF,
   4. et al

   . Consensus interpretation in imaging research: is there a better way? Radiology 2010;257:14–17

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Feinstein AR,
    2. Cicchetti DV

    . High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:543–49

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Feinstein AR

    . Misguided efforts and future challenges for research on “diagnostic tests.” J Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56:330–32

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Roy D,
    2. Milot G,
    3. Raymond J

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

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    1. Landis JR,
    2. Koch GG

    . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Campi A,
    2. Ramzi N,
    3. Molyneux AJ,
    4. et al

    . Retreatment of ruptured cerebral aneurysms in patients randomized by coiling or clipping in the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT). Stroke 2007;38:1538–44

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Molyneux AJ

    , 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. The Lancet 2002;360:1267–74
16. 16.↵
    1. Higashida RT,
    2. Lahue BJ,
    3. Torbey MT,
    4. et al

    . Treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a nationwide assessment of effectiveness. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:146–51

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Roy D

    . Safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment of acutely ruptured aneurysms. Neurosurgery 1997;41:1235–45, discussion 1245–46

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Darsaut TE

    . An approach to the problem of recurrent aneurysms following endovascular coiling. J NeuroIntervent Surg; epub 2011, February 25. doi:10.1136/jnis.2011.004788
19. 19.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Roy D,
    3. Bojanowski M,
    4. et al

    . Endovascular treatment of acutely ruptured aneurysms of the basilar bifurcation. J. Neurosurg 1997;86:211–19.

    PubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    1. Cognard C,
    2. Weill A,
    3. Spelle L,
    4. et al

    . Long-term angiographic follow-up of 169 intracranial berry aneurysms occluded with detachable coils. Radiology 1999;212:348–56

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    1. Johnston SC,
    2. Dowd CF,
    3. Higashida RT,
    4. et al

    . Predictors of rehemorrhage after treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: the Cerebral Aneurysm Rerupture After Treatment (CARAT) study. Stroke 2008;39:120–25

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    1. Meyers PM,
    2. Schumacher HC,
    3. Higashida RT,
    4. et al

    . Reporting standards for endovascular repair of saccular intracranial cerebral aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:E12–24

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Cognard C,
    3. Anxionnat R,
    4. et al

    . Ruptured intracranial aneurysms: factors affecting the rate and outcome of endovascular treatment complications in a series of 782 patients (CLARITY study). Radiology 2010;256:916–23

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Gönner 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
25. 25.↵
    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
26. 26.↵
    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
27. 27.↵
    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
28. 28.↵
    1. Kähärä VJ,
    2. Seppänen 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. 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
30. 30.↵
    1. Costalat V,
    2. Lebars E,
    3. Sarry L,
    4. et al

    . In vitro evaluation of 2D-digital subtraction angiography versus 3D-time-of-flight in assessment of intracranial cerebral aneurysm filling after endovascular therapy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:177–84

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    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
32. 32.↵
    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
33. 33.↵
    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
34. 34.↵
    1. Sprengers ME,
    2. Schaafsma J,
    3. van Rooij WJ,
    4. et al

    . Stability of intracranial aneurysms adequately occluded 6 months after coiling: a 3T MR angiography multicenter long-term follow-up study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1768–74

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
35. 35.↵
    Cloft HJ, HEAL Investigators. HydroCoil for Endovascular Aneurysm Occlusion (HEAL) study: 3–6 month angiographic follow-up results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:152–54

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
36. 36.↵
    1. Vierkant RA

    . A SAS macro for calculating bootstrapped confidence intervals about a kappa coefficient. Marshfield Medical Research Foundation, Marshfield, Wisconsin. Accessible online at http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi22/STATS/PAPER295.PDF
37. 37.↵
    1. Raymond J

    . Counterpoint: has the last word been said? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1649–52

    FREE Full Text