Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33221944›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

The clinical value of ceMRA versus DSA for follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by coil embolization: an assessment of occlusion classifications and impact on treatment decisions.

Maximilian Patzig, Robert Forbrig, Margaretha Gruber, Thomas Liebig, Franziska Dorn

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maximilian PatzigInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377, Munich, Germany. maximilian.patzig@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0465-6923
Robert ForbrigInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377, Munich, Germany.
Margaretha GruberInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377, Munich, Germany.
Thomas LiebigInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377, Munich, Germany.
Franziska DornInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377, Munich, Germany.
LMU Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was a detailed analysis of the value of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (ceMRA) compared to digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for follow-up imaging of intracranial aneurysms treated by coil embolization.

methodsPatients with coiled aneurysms and follow-up exams including both DSA and 3 T ceMRA were retrospectively identified. In blinded readings, both modalities were graded according to the modified Raymond-Roy classification (MRRC) and the Meyers scale. Additionally, readers were asked to make a decision regarding retreatment/follow-up based on the respective imaging findings.

resultsThe study comprised 92 patients harboring 102 coiled aneurysms. There was good intermethod agreement of DSA and ceMRA concerning both the MRRC (κ = 0.64) and the Meyers scale (κ = 0.74). Agreement regarding occlusion of < 90% of the aneurysm (Meyers grade ≥ 2) was very good (κ = 0.87). Regarding the detection of a remnant with contrast between the coil mass and the aneurysm wall (MRRC IIIb), there were 12 discrepant findings and agreement was good (κ = 0.70). Comparing treatment/follow-up decisions, the two methods agreed very well (κ = 0.92). In seven patients with discrepant treatment decisions, the authors concurred with DSA in four cases and with ceMRA in three cases when evaluating both modalities together. Interval aneurysm growth was found in more cases with ceMRA (n = 19) than with DSA (n = 16).

conclusionsCeMRA is very unlikely to miss a relevant aneurysm remnant and thus could be suitable as the primary follow-up method. In case of remnant growth or recurrence, however, additional DSA might be required to guide treatment decisions. KEY POINTS: • There is high accordance between ceMRA and DSA regarding the evaluation of intracranial aneurysms treated by endovascular coil embolization, but closer analysis also revealed relevant differences. • CeMRA could be suitable as the primary follow-up imaging modality, potentially eliminating the need for routine DSA. • DSA will still be required in case of aneurysm remnant growth or recurrence as detected by ceMRA.

Indexed as

Embolization, TherapeuticIntracranial AneurysmAngiography, Digital SubtractionFollow-Up StudiesHumansMagnetic Resonance AngiographyRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAngiographyDigital subtractionEndovascular proceduresIntracranial aneurysmMagnetic resonance angiography

Identifiers

PMID33221944
OpenAlexW3108993206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.