Follow-up of Coiled Cerebral Aneurysms: Comparison of Three-Dimensional Time-of-Flight Magnetic Resonance Angiography at 3 Tesla With Three-Dimensional Time-of-Flight Magnetic Resonance Angiography and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography at 1.5 Tesla

Abstract

TOF-MRA follow-up of coiled aneurysms is better at 3 T than at 1.5 T; nevertheless, greater definition of residual patency is achieved with ultrafast CE-MRA at 1.5 T.

A Prospective Trial of 3T and 1.5T Time-of-Flight and Contrast-Enhanced MR Angiography in the Follow-Up of Coiled Intracranial Aneurysms

“…[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]24 In summary, some of these studies showed results similar to those in our current study, and some showed the superior performance of MRA relative to DSA compared with that in our current study, though some of these differences are very likely related to the differences in the aneurysm occlusion scales used. Conflicting conclusions regarding the performance of MRA relative to DSA and of the performance of various MRA techniques relative to each other certainly still exist, however.…”

“…There remains ambiguity over the overall performance of MRA relative to DSA in the depiction of coiled aneurysm remnants and in the relative performance of TOF-MRA, bolus gadolinium CE-MRA, and MRA performed at the field strengths of 1.5 T versus at 3T, with different groups reporting conflicting results. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] We wished to prospectively study the performance of MRA relative to DSA for the clinical indication of the follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms, and more specifically, we wished to study the relative performance of the 2 major types of MRA at 2 popular main magnetic field strengths, 1.5 and 3T. We present the results of a prospective clinical trial comparing the accuracies of 4 different MRA techniques, TOF and CE-MRA both at 1.5T and at 3T, by using DSA as the standard of reference in the follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms.…”

MR Angiography Follow-Up of Aneurysms Treated with Coils: Is There a Need for the Use of Gadolinium?

“…5 Nevertheless, some authors 2 have not found significant improvements with the use of CE-MRA compared with unenhanced TOF acquisitions. In our personal experience, 4 we found better evidence of small remnants (Raymond type 1) after CE-MRA and better delineation of the recanalization in larger residual portions (Raymond type 2).…”

“…[1][2][3][4] The use of high resolution steady-state acquisition with a blood-pool agent is similar to that of extracellular contrast media enhanced TOF-MRA, in which veins also enhance and overlap the arterial structures, in some cases giving false-positive images of aneurysm recanalization. With bloodpool agents, the risk of complete enhancement of both arteries and veins is more likely, potentially leading to more falsepositive findings.…”

MR Angiographic Follow-Up of Intracranial Aneurysms Treated with Detachable Coils: Evaluation of a Blood-Pool Contrast Medium

“…10,13 Although some authors have not used contrast material, [10][11][12][13][14][16][17][18][19][20]23,29,33,35 some have used contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) to increase signal intensity in residual pouches. 7,15,17,21,22,[24][25][26][27][28]31,32,34 The added value of arterial contrast enhancement in the follow-up of coiled aneurysms, however, remains controversial, and venous enhancement often degrades image quality. 15,17,25,31,32 Blood-pool contrast media (BPCM) remain in the intravascular space for a longer time, therefore permitting both first-pass and delayed steady-state imaging.…”