[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Pericallosal artery aneurysms are uncommon. Their treatment strategy, surgical or endovascular, will present specific challenges. The objective of the study was to compare risks of coil therapy and the recurrence rate of pericallosal artery aneurysms with aneurysms in other intradural locations.
The authors examined data that were stored in a prospectively collected database for pericallosal artery aneurysms in patients who underwent coil placement between 1992 and 2005. Hemorrhagic and thromboembolic complications as well as clinical and angiographic outcomes were reviewed. Angiographically documented recurrences were classified as minor or major. These lesions were compared with a historical cohort of non-pericallosal artery aneurysms in patients who underwent coil therapy between 1992 and 2002. The known risk factors for recurrence and procedure-related hemorrhagic complications were evaluated in both groups to assess baseline imbalances.
During a 13-year period, 25 pericallosal artery aneurysms were treated with coils in 25 patients. The non-pericallosal artery lesion group included 488 aneurysms of which 344 underwent follow-up imaging. Procedure-related perforations were more frequent for pericallosal artery aneurysms than those in other intradural locations (three of 25 compared with eight of 476, respectively; risk ratio 7.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-22.5, p = 0.03). Follow-up imaging studies (obtained at a mean 28 months) were available for 19 patients with pericallosal artery aneurysms. The recurrence rate was not significantly higher in these patients (22.9/100 person-years of observation) than in those with non-pericallosal artery aneurysms (17.9/100 person-years of observation) (incidence rate ratio 1.3, 95% CI 0.6-2.4, p = 0.46).
Pericallosal artery aneurysms were associated with significantly higher periprocedural rupture than non-pericallosal artery lesions. No significant intergroup difference was found for aneurysm recurrence.
Journal of Neurosurgery 12/2007; 107(5):973-6. · 3.15 Impact Factor
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Several angiographic features of brain arteriovenous malformations (BAVMs) have been associated with an increased risk of hemorrhage. However, interpretation of these features may not be consistent between observers. We conducted a study to determine inter- and intraobserver agreement of various angioarchitectural characteristics of BAVM.
Two experienced interventional neuroradiologists independently reviewed pre- and post-endovascular treatment angiograms from 50 consecutive patients. Axial CT and/or MR images before treatment were included. We collected the following data: Spetzler-Martin grades, number of involved arterial territories, associated aneurysms by location (circle of Willis, feeding artery, intranidal, and venous), and nidus reduction after endovascular treatment (<33%, 33%-66%, and >66%). The reviewers were compared with each other, and 1 was compared with himself after a 3-month interval. Measures of agreement were performed by using the kappa statistic (kappa) for nominal data and the weighted kappa for ordinal data.
Inter- and intraobserver agreement were higher for assessment of the Spetzler-Martin grade (weighted kappa = 0.70/0.75) and nidus size reduction after endovascular treatment (kappa = 0.74/0.77). Inter- and intraobserver agreement were inferior for findings concerning feeding artery aneurysms (kappa = 0.19/0.36), intranidal aneurysms (kappa = 0.34/0.35), and venous aneurysms (kappa = 0.50/0.67).
Angiographic characteristics of BAVMs considered as risk factors for hemorrhage, such as aneurysms, are not reliably detected on global angiograms between different observers. In contrast, the Spetzler-Martin grading system and angiographic results of endovascular treatment can be used with high observer agreement.
American Journal of Neuroradiology 03/2007; 28(3):524-7. · 3.17 Impact Factor
Journal of Neuroradiology - J NEURORADIOL. 01/2005; 32(2):86-87.
Journal of Neuroradiology - J NEURORADIOL. 01/2005; 32(2):95-95.
Journal of Neuroradiology - J NEURORADIOL. 01/2005; 32(2):94-95.