ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2019
Optimizing contrast-enhanced cone-beam CT protocol to facilitate simultaneous visualization of neurovascular pathologies and surrounding structures of interest.
Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Swedish nationwide study of 377 patents with non-aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: a disease with distinct demographics and risk factors.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2026Article
- A technical note on intra-arterial cone-beam computed tomography for the evaluation of flow-diverter stents: Image quality differences between diluted and non-diluted contrast medium.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveContrast-enhanced cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging is commonly used for evaluating neurovascular stents and their relationship to the parent artery or vascular pathologies such as arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) and dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVFs) in the context of surrounding anatomical structures. The purpose of this study was to understand the effects of varying concentrations of contrast medium used in CBCT imaging for optimal visualization of various endovascular devices and anatomical pathologies.
methodsThirty-five patients with various neurovascular pathologies were included in the study. Contrast-enhanced CBCT images (20 s DR, Siemens syngo DynaCT, Siemens AG, Forchheim, Germany) were acquired in all cases, with varying dilutions of contrast medium, from 1% to 30%. The injection rate was kept constant at 3 cc/sec with an X-ray delay of two sec, and a total volume of 66 cc of diluted contrast was administered. Results from visual and quantitative analysis were reported.
resultsTen percent dilution of contrast medium resulted in the best image differentiation between flow-diverter devices and the parent artery. Concentrations as low as 2.5% contrast medium also resulted in identifying AVMs in the context of the surrounding brain parenchyma, whereas 20% to 30% dilution provided the best visualization of residual AVMs with prior Onyx embolization and dAVFs in the presence of bony structures.
conclusionsSimultaneous visualization of brain parenchyma, bony structures, devices, and pathological anatomy using contrast-enhanced CBCT imaging is feasible with appropriate doses of iodinated contrast, and should be tailored to the individual case based on the goals of CBCT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.