Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2018
Intravenous versus intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography: Occlusion rate and complication assessment of experimental aneurysms after flow diverter treatment in rabbits.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Simgen Andreas, Tomori Toshiki, Bomberg Hagen, Yilmaz Umut, Roth Christian, Reith Wolfgang, Mühl-Bennighaus Ruben
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Conventional intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography, which requires surgical exposure and ligation of the femoral or carotid artery, is a limited method of evaluating elastase-induced aneurysms in New Zealand white rabbits. The purpose of this study was to assess aneurysm morphology, occlusion rates and complications after flow diverter treatment comparing intravenous and intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography.
METHODS: We previously published a preclinical study in which we evaluated the occlusion rates of elastase-induced aneurysms after treatment with a prototype flow diverter, by using intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography at three months ( n = 9) and six months ( n = 9). In addition to that intravenous digital subtraction angiography before treatment, after one month (early follow-up group) and after three months (late follow-up group) was performed. Occlusion rates were compared within the two groups by means of residual contrast filling.
RESULTS: Baseline aneurysm characteristics revealed no significant differences between intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography and intravenous digital subtraction angiography. Aneurysm occlusion rates in both follow-up groups using intravenous digital subtraction angiography were significantly higher compared to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (early follow-up group: intravenous digital subtraction angiography (one month) versus intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (three months); p = 0.03 and late follow-up group: intravenous digital subtraction angiography (three months) versus intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (six months); p = 0.04). Intravenous digital subtraction angiography is feasible to detect and reproduce device occlusions, in-stent stenosis and post-stent stenosis.
CONCLUSION: Intravenous digital subtraction angiography can not give a sufficient statement on the aneurysm occlusion process compared to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography and is therefore not recommended for imaging follow-up after flow diverter treatment in rabbits. Regarding untreated aneurysms and complications like device occlusions, in-stent stenosis and post-stent stenosis intravenous digital subtraction angiography proofed to be a good alternative to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography in our study.
METHODS: We previously published a preclinical study in which we evaluated the occlusion rates of elastase-induced aneurysms after treatment with a prototype flow diverter, by using intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography at three months ( n = 9) and six months ( n = 9). In addition to that intravenous digital subtraction angiography before treatment, after one month (early follow-up group) and after three months (late follow-up group) was performed. Occlusion rates were compared within the two groups by means of residual contrast filling.
RESULTS: Baseline aneurysm characteristics revealed no significant differences between intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography and intravenous digital subtraction angiography. Aneurysm occlusion rates in both follow-up groups using intravenous digital subtraction angiography were significantly higher compared to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (early follow-up group: intravenous digital subtraction angiography (one month) versus intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (three months); p = 0.03 and late follow-up group: intravenous digital subtraction angiography (three months) versus intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (six months); p = 0.04). Intravenous digital subtraction angiography is feasible to detect and reproduce device occlusions, in-stent stenosis and post-stent stenosis.
CONCLUSION: Intravenous digital subtraction angiography can not give a sufficient statement on the aneurysm occlusion process compared to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography and is therefore not recommended for imaging follow-up after flow diverter treatment in rabbits. Regarding untreated aneurysms and complications like device occlusions, in-stent stenosis and post-stent stenosis intravenous digital subtraction angiography proofed to be a good alternative to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography in our study.