Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Artificial intelligence aneurysm measurement tool finds growth in all aneurysms that ruptured during conservative management
  1. Daniel H Sahlein1,
  2. Daniel Gibson2,
  3. John A Scott1,
  4. Andrew DeNardo1,
  5. Krishna Amuluru1,
  6. Troy Payner3,
  7. David Rosenbaum-Halevi1,
  8. Charles Kulwin3
  1. 1Neurointerventional Radiology, Goodman Campbell Brain and Spine at Ascension St. Vincent, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
  2. 2Neurointerventional Surgery, Ascension Columbia St. Mary's Hospital, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
  3. 3Neurosurgery, Goodman Campbell Brain and Spine at Ascension St. Vincent, Indianapolis, IN, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Daniel H Sahlein, Neuroendovascular, Goodman Campbell Brain and Spine, Carmel, IN 46032, USA; dsahlein{at}goodmancampbell.com

Abstract

Background Cerebral aneurysm rupture is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Detecting aneurysms at high risk of rupture is critical in management decision making. Rupture risk has traditionally been associated with size—measured as a maximum dimension. However, aneurysms are morphologically dynamic, a characteristic ignored by large prospective aneurysm risk studies. Manual measurement is challenging and fraught with error. We used an artificial intelligence (AI) measurement tool to study aneurysms that ruptured during conservative management to detect changes in size not appreciated by manual linear measurement.

Methods A single practice database with >5000 aneurysms was queried. Patients followed conservatively for an unruptured aneurysm were identified using appropriate diagnosis codes. This cohort was screened for subsequent rupture using procedure codes. Only patients with two vascular imaging studies before rupture were included.

Results Five patients met the criteria. All patients had aneurysm enlargement, two of which were not detected from manual linear measurements, including adjudication and analysis, during a multidisciplinary neurovascular conference in a high volume practice. Maximum dimension increased at a minimum of 1.8% (range 1.8–63.3%) from the first scan to the last, and aneurysm volume increased at a minimum of 5.9% (5.9–385.5%), highlighting the importance of volumetric measurement.

Conclusions AI-enabled volumetric measurements are more sensitive to changes in size and detected enlargement in all aneurysms that ruptured during conservative management. This finding has major implications for clinical practice and methods used for interval aneurysm measurement in patients being conservatively followed.

  • Aneurysm
  • Intervention

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data that support this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

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.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data that support this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors DHS: guarantor, designed the study, drafted the manuscript and interpreted the data, critically reviewed and edited the manuscript. DPG, JAS, AJD, KA, TDP, DRH and CGK drafted the manuscript and interpreted the data, critically reviewed and edited the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests DHS: consultant for Medtronic, Microvention and Phenox, grant from Microvention, payment or honoraria for lectures from Medtronic and Microvention, support for attending meetings from Microvention and Medtronic. DPG: data support and consultant for iSchemaView. KA: consultant for Medtronic.

  • 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.