Differences in the Angiographic Evaluation of Coiled Cerebral Aneurysms between a Core Laboratory Reader and Operators: Results of the Cerecyte Coil Trial

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Zang P,
   2. Liang C,
   3. Shi Q,
   4. et al

   . Intraprocedural cerebral aneurysm rupture during endovascular coiling. Neurol India 2011;59:369–72

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Gallas S,
   2. Januel AC,
   3. Pasco A,
   4. et al

   . Long-term follow-up of 1036 cerebral aneurysms treated by bare coils: a multicentric cohort treated between 1998 and 2003. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1986–92

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Murayama Y,
   2. Nien YL,
   3. Duckwiler G,
   4. et al

   . Guglielmi detachable coil embolization of cerebral aneurysms: 11 years' experience. J Neurosurg 2003;98:959–66

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   1. Kang HS,
   2. Han MH,
   3. Lee TH,
   4. et al

   . Embolization of intracranial aneurysms with Hydrogel-coated coils: result of a Korean multicenter trial. Neurosurgery 2007;61:51–59

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. 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
6. 6.↵
   1. Park JH,
   2. Kang HS,
   3. Han MH,
   4. et al

   ; Korean HydroSoft Registry Investigators. Embolization of intracranial aneurysms with HydroSoft coils: results of the Korean multicenter study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:1756–61

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. Pierot L,
   2. Cognard C,
   3. Ricolfi F,
   4. et al

   . Mid-term anatomic results after endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms with GDC and Matrix coils: analysis of the CLARITY series. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:469–73

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Pierot L,
   2. Leclerc X,
   3. Bonafé A,
   4. et al

   . Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with Matrix detachable coils: midterm anatomic follow-up from a prospective multicenter registry. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:57–61

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. Molyneux AJ,
   2. Clarke A,
   3. Sneade M,
   4. et al

   . Cerecyte Coil Trial: angiographic outcomes of a prospective randomized trial comparing endovascular coiling of cerebral aneurysms with either Cerecyte or bare platinum coils. Stroke 2012;43:2544–50

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    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 randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2011;377:1655–62

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Claiborne Johnson S,
    2. McDougal C,
    3. Gholkar A

    . The MAPS (Matrix and Platinum Science) Trial: primary results. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society of Neurointerventional Surgery, Colorado Springs, Colorado. July 25–28, 2011
12. 12.↵
    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
13. 13.↵
    1. Plowman RS,
    2. Clarke A,
    3. Clarke M,
    4. et al

    . Sixteen-year single-surgeon experience with coil embolization for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: recurrence rates and incidence of later rebleeding: clinical article. J Neurosurg 2011;114:863–74

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    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
15. 15.↵
    1. Guo XB,
    2. Fan YM,
    3. Zhang JN

    . HydroSoft coil versus HydroCoil for endovascular aneurysm occlusion study: a single center experience. Eur J Radiol 2011;79:e42–46

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Kole MK,
    2. Pelz DM,
    3. Kalapos P,
    4. et al

    . Endovascular coil embolization of intracranial aneurysms: important factors related to rates and outcomes of incomplete occlusion. J Neurosurg 2005;102:607–15

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Sluzewski M,
    2. van Rooij WJ,
    3. Slob MJ,
    4. et al

    . Relation between aneurysm volume, packing, and compaction in 145 cerebral aneurysms treated with coils. Radiology 2004;231:653–58

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Fernandez Zubillaga A,
    2. Guglielmi G,
    3. Viñuela F,
    4. et al

    . Endovascular occlusion of intracranial aneurysms with electrically detachable coils: correlation of aneurysm neck size and treatment results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:815–20

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    1. Rezek I,
    2. Mousan G,
    3. Wang Z,
    4. et al

    . Effect of core laboratory and multiple-reader interpretation of angiographic images on follow-up outcomes of coiled cerebral aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1380–84

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Cognard C,
    3. Ricolfi F,
    4. et al

    . Immediate anatomic results after the endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: analysis in the CLARITY series. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:907–11

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    1. Coley S,
    2. Sneade M,
    3. Clarke A,
    4. et al

    . Cerecyte Coil Trial: procedural safety and clinical outcomes in patients with ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:474–80

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    1. Viera AJ,
    2. Garrett JM

    . Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005;37:360–63

    PubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    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
24. 24.↵
    1. Douglas PS,
    2. DeCara JM,
    3. Devereux RB,
    4. et al

    . Echocardiographic imaging in clinical trials: American Society of Echocardiography Standards for echocardiography core laboratories: endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2009;22:755–65

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Dahiya A,
    2. Bolen M,
    3. Grimm RA,
    4. et al

    . Development of a consensus document to improve multireader concordance and accuracy of aortic regurgitation severity grading by echocardiography versus cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Cardiol 2012;110:709–14

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Hole T,
    2. Otterstad JE,
    3. St John Sutton M,
    4. et al

    . Differences between echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular dimensions and function by local investigators and a core laboratory in a 2-year follow-up study of patients with an acute myocardial infarction. Eur J Echocardiogr 2002;3:263–70

    PubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Baur LH,
    2. Schipperheyn JJ,
    3. van der Velde EA,
    4. et al

    . Reproducibility of left ventricular size, shape and mass with echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging and radionuclide angiography in patients with anterior wall infarction: a plea for core laboratories. Int J Card Imaging 1996;12:233–40

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    1. Oh JK

    . Is core laboratory essential for using echocardiography in clinical trials? Controlled vs random error. Eur J Echocardiogr 2002;3:245–47

    PubMed