Background Multiple studies have reported the clinical usefulness of silent magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in the follow-up of endovascularly-treated aneurysms. However, most previous studies were retrospective or with small sample sizes. The objective of this study was to prospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of silent MRA in the follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by different interventional approaches.
Methods Patients with endovascularly-treated intracranial aneurysms and followed by silent MRA and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) were enrolled. The visualization of treated sites on silent MRA was rated on a 5-point scale. The aneurysm occlusion status was evaluated using the Raymond Scale and a simplified two-grade scale.
Results A total of 155 patients with 175 treated aneurysms were enrolled. The average score for the visualization of treated sites was 3.92±0.94, and 93.7% (164/175) had a score ≥3. In the subgroup analysis, except for the simple coiling group which had an obviously higher score (4.95±0.21), there was no significant difference among the stent-assisted coiling group (3.51±0.77), flow diversion group (3.74±0.80), and flow diversion with coiling group (3.40±1.17). Regarding aneurysm occlusion status, silent MRA and DSA were discordant for only one aneurysm using the Raymond Scale, and the inter-modality consistency was almost perfect (κ=0.992, 95% CI 0.977 to 1.000).
Conclusions Silent MRA showed an excellent diagnostic performance in the follow-up of endovascularly-treated intracranial aneurysms, and may be an ideal option for repeated examinations.
- Magnetic Resonance Angiography
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors Conception and design: YW, XZ, ST, QY. Data collection and analysis: ST, YL, BL, QY. Drafting the article: ST. Critically revising the article: YW, XZ. YW is the guarantor of the study.
Funding This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number: 8196070077) and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province (grant number: 20 202BABL206053).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.