Evaluation of noninvasive follow-up methods for the detection of intracranial in-stent restenosis: A phantom study

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 98-103

  Psychogios, Marios Nikos ^a   Schramm, Peter ^a   Amelung, Nadine ^a   Pilgram Pastor, Sara Magdalena ^a   Gröschel, Klaus ^a,b   Wasser, Katrin ^a   Frölich, Andreas Maximilian ^a   Mohr, Alexander ^a   Knauth, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER MAINZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

flat panel angiographic CT; in stent restenosis; multidetector CT; noninvasive follow up; phantom study

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY AFTER INTRAVENOUS CONTRAST AGENT APPLICATION; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIGITAL SUBTRACTION ANGIOGRAPHY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; IN-STENT RESTENOSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAARTERIAL DIGITAL SUBTRACTION ANGIOGRAPHY; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PERCUTANEOUS TRANSLUMINAL ANGIOPLASTY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SILASTIC TUBE; STENT;

EID: 84872291353     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318276db43     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Chimowitz MI, Lynn MJ, Derdeyn CP, et al. Stenting versus aggressive medical therapy for intracranial arterial stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:993-1003.
2. Abou-Chebl A. Intracranial stenting with wingspan: still awaiting a safe landing. Stroke. 2011;42:1809-1811.
3. Abou-Chebl A, Steinmetz H. Critique of "stenting versus aggressive medical 7therapy for intracranial arterial stenosis" by Chimowitz et al in the New England Journal of Medicine. Stroke. 2012;43:616-620.
4. Henkes H, Bazner H, Nelson PK. Comment on: stenting versus aggressive medical therapy for intracranial arterial stenosis: Chimowitz MI, Lynn MJ, Derdeyn CP, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:993-1003. Clin Neuroradiol. 2011; 21:257-259.
5. Turk AS, Levy EI, Albuquerque FC, et al. Influence of patient age and stenosis location on wingspan in-stent restenosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29: 23-27.
6. Fiorella DJ, Levy EI, Turk AS, et al. Target lesion revascularization after wingspan: assessment of safety and durability. Stroke. 2009;40:106-110.
7. Albuquerque FC, Levy EI, Turk AS, et al. Angiographic patterns of Wingspan in-stent restenosis. Neurosurgery. 2008;63:23-27; discussion 27-28.
8. Willinsky RA, Taylor SM, TerBrugge K, et al. Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography: prospective analysis of 2,899 procedures and review of the literature. Radiology. 2003;227:522-528.
9. Nguyen-Huynh MN, Wintermark M, English J, et al. How accurate is CT angiography in evaluating intracranial atherosclerotic disease? Stroke. 2008;39: 1184-1188.
10. Trossbach M, Hartmann M, Braun C, et al. Small vessel stents for intracranial angioplasty: in vitro evaluation of in-stent stenoses using CT angiography. Neuroradiology. 2004;46:459-463.
11. Schlotzer W, Huber R, Schmitz BL. Stent-assisted intracranial angioplasty: potentials and limitations of pre-and postinterventional CT angiography [in German]. Rofo. 2009;181:121-128.
12. Choo KS, Lee TH, Choi CH, et al. Assessment of the intracranial stents patency and re-stenosis by 16-slice CT angiography with optimized sharp kernel: preliminary study. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2009;45:284-288.
13. Groschel K, Schnaudigel S, Buhk JH, et al. Intracranial stent restenosis diagnosed on routine duplex follow-up investigation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29:e65; author reply e66.
14. Prabhakaran S, Warrior L, Wells KR, et al. The utility of quantitative magnetic resonance angiography in the assessment of intracranial in-stent stenosis. Stroke. 2009;40:991-993.
15. Psychogios MN, Schramm P, Buhk JH, et al. Angiographic CT after intravenous contrast agent application: a noninvasive follow-up tool after intracranial angioplasty and stenting. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31:1886-1891.
16. Struffert T, Ott S, Adamek E, et al. Flat-detector computed tomography in the assessment of intracranial stents: comparison with multi detector CT and conventional angiography in a new animal model. Eur Radiol. 2011;21: 1779-1787.
17. Guggenberger R, Fischer MA, Hodler J, et al. Flat-panel CT arthrography: feasibility study and comparison to multidetector CTarthrography. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:312-318.
18. Krouwer JS, Monti KL. A simple, graphical method to evaluate laboratory assays. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1995;33:525-527.
19. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310.
20. Cloft HJ. Warning: side effects may include a decrease in invasive procedures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32:1976-1977.
21. Frolich AM, Pilgram-Pastor SM, Psychogios MN, et al. Comparing different MR angiography strategies of carotid stents in a vascular flow model: toward stent-specific recommendations in MR follow-up. Neuroradiology. 2011;53: 359-365.
22. Mahnken AH, Seyfarth T, Flohr T, et al. Flat-panel detector computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery stents: phantom study in comparison with 16-slice spiral computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2005;40: 8-13.
23. Pugliese F, Cademartiri F, van Mieghem C, et al. Multidetector CT for visualization of coronary stents. Radiographics. 2006;26:887-904.
24. Schueler BA, Kallmes DF, Cloft HJ. 3D cerebral angiography: radiation dose comparison with digital subtraction angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26:1898-1901.
25. Struffert T, Kloska S, Engelhorn T, et al. Optimized intravenous flat detector CT for non-invasive visualization of intracranial stents: first results. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:411-418.
26. Saake M, Struffert T, Goelitz P, et al. Angiographic CT with intravenous contrast agent application for monitoring of intracranial flow diverting stents. Neuroradiology. 2011;54:727-735.