Follow-up of Intracranial Aneurysms Treated by Flow Diverters: Evaluation of Parent Artery Patency Using 3D-T1 Gradient Recalled-Echo Imaging with 2-Point Dixon in Combination with 3D-TOF-MRA with Compressed Sensing

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Nelson PK,
   2. Lylyk P,
   3. Szikora I, et al

   . The Pipeline Embolization Device for the intracranial treatment of aneurysms trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:34–40 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2421 pmid:21148256

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Kallmes DF,
   2. Hanel R,
   3. Lopes D, et al

   . International retrospective study of the Pipeline Embolization Device: a multicenter aneurysm treatment study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:108–15 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4111 pmid:25355814

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Brinjikji W,
   2. Murad MH,
   3. Lanzino G, et al

   . Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow diverters: a meta-analysis. Stroke 2013;44:442–47 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.678151 pmid:23321438

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Dandapat S,
   2. Mendez-Ruiz A,
   3. Martínez-Galdámez M, et al

   . Review of current intracranial aneurysm flow diversion technology and clinical use. J Neurointerv Surg 2021;13:54–62 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-015877 pmid:32978269

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Oishi H,
   2. Fujii T,
   3. Suzuki M, et al

   . Usefulness of silent MR angiography for intracranial aneurysms treated with a flow-diverter device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:808–14 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6047 pmid:31048297

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. O'Kelly CJ,
   2. Spears J,
   3. Chow M, et al

   . Canadian experience with the Pipeline Embolization Device for repair of unruptured intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:381–87 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3224 pmid:22859284

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. Briganti F,
   2. Napoli M,
   3. Leone G, et al

   . Treatment of intracranial aneurysms by flow diverter devices: long-term results from a single center. Eur J Radiol 2014;83:1683–90 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.05.029 pmid:24985339

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Kallmes DF,
   2. Brinjikji W,
   3. Cekirge S, et al

   . Safety and efficacy of the Pipeline embolization device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a pooled analysis of 3 large studies. J Neurosurg 2017;127:775–80 doi:10.3171/2016.8.JNS16467 pmid:27791519

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Zhang X,
   2. Lv N,
   3. Wang C, et al

   . Late recurrence of a completely occluded large intracranial aneurysm treated with a Tubridge flow diverter. Neurointerv Surg 2017;9;e6 doi:10.1136/cr-2016-012268 pmid:27342762

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    1. Trivelato FP,
    2. Ulhôa AC,
    3. Rezende MT, et al

    . Recurrence of a totally occluded aneurysm after treatment with a Pipeline Embolization Device. BMJ Case Rep 2018;2018:bcr-2018013842 doi:10.1136/bcr-2018-013842 pmid:29695391

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Soize S,
    2. Gawlitza M,
    3. Raoult H, et al

    . Imaging follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by endovascular means: why, when, and how? Stroke 2016;47:1407–12 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011414 pmid:27026629

    FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Gupta R,
    2. Ogilvy CS,
    3. Moore JM, et al

    . Proposal of a follow-up imaging strategy following Pipeline flow diversion treatment of intracranial aneurysms. J Neurosurg 2018;131:32–39 doi:10.3171/2018.2.JNS172673 pmid:30004284

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Becske T,
    2. Brinjikji W,
    3. Potts MB, et al

    . Long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes following Pipeline Embolization Device treatment of complex internal carotid artery aneurysms: five-year Results of the Pipeline for Uncoilable or Failed Aneurysms Trial. Neurosurgery 2017;80:40–48 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyw014 pmid:28362885

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Deutschmann HA,
    2. Wehrschuetz M,
    3. Augustin M, et al

    . Long-term follow-up after treatment of intracranial aneurysms with the Pipeline Embolization Device: results from a single center. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:481–86 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2790 pmid:22158922

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Halitcan B,
    2. Bige S,
    3. Sinan B, et al

    . The implications of magnetic resonance angiography artifacts caused by different types of intracranial flow diverters. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2021;23:69 doi:10.1186/s12968-021-00753-0 pmid:34092251

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Attali J,
    2. Benaissa A,
    3. Soize S, et al

    . Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by flow diverter: comparison of three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography (3D-TOF-MRA) and contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) sequences with digital subtraction angiography as the gold standard. J Neurointerv Surg 2016;8:81–86 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011449 pmid:25352582

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    1. Boddu SR,
    2. Tong FC,
    3. Dehkharghani S, et al

    . Contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA for follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:2112–18 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4008 pmid:24994828

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    1. Patzig M,
    2. Forbrig R,
    3. Ertl L, et al

    . Intracranial aneurysms treated by flow-diverting stents: long-term follow-up with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2017;40:1713–22 doi:10.1007/s00270-017-1732-z pmid:28685380

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. McGuinness BJ,
    2. Memon S,
    3. Hope JK

    . Prospective study of early MRI appearances following flow-diverting stent placement for intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:943–48 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4335 pmid:25767184

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    1. Ahmed SU,
    2. Mocco J,
    3. Zhang X, et al

    . MRA versus DSA for the follow-up imaging of intracranial aneurysms treated using endovascular techniques: a meta-analysis. J Neurointerve Surg 2019;11:1009–14 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-014936 pmid:31048457

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Kaufmann TJ,
    2. Huston J,
    3. Mandrekar JN, et al

    . Complications of diagnostic cerebral angiography: evaluation of 19,826 consecutive patients. Radiology 2007;243:812–19 doi:10.1148/radiol.2433060536 pmid:17517935

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Shao Q,
    2. Wu Q,
    3. Li Q, et al

    . Usefulness of 3D T1-SPACE in combination with 3D-TOF MRA for follow-up evaluation of intracranial aneurysms treated with Pipeline Embolization Devices. Front Neurol 2020;11:542493 doi:10.3389/fneur.2020.542493 pmid:33362681

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Irie R,
    2. Amemiya S,
    3. Ueyama T, et al

    . Accelerated acquisition of carotid MR angiography using 3D gradient-echo imaging with two-point Dixon. Neuroradiology 2020;62:1345–49 doi:10.1007/s00234-020-02452-6 pmid:32424711

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Landis JR,
    2. Koch GG

    . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74 doi:10.2307/2529310 pmid:843571

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science