Prediction of Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption and Intracerebral Hemorrhagic Infarction Using Arterial Spin-Labeling Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Arterial spin-labeling magnetic resonance imaging is sensitive for detecting hyperemic lesions (HLs) in patients with acute ischemic stroke. We evaluated whether HLs could predict blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption and hemorrhagic transformation (HT) in acute ischemic stroke patients. METHODS: In a retrospective study, arterial spin-labeling was performed within 6 hours of symptom onset before revascularization treatment in 25 patients with anterior circulation large vessel occlusion on baseline magnetic resonance angiography. All patients underwent angiographic procedures intended for endovascular therapy and a noncontrast computed tomography scan immediately after treatment. BBB disruption was defined as a hyperdense lesion present on the posttreatment computed tomography scan. A subacute magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography scan was performed during the subacute phase to assess HTs. The relationship between HLs and BBB disruption and HT was examined using the Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score locations in the symptomatic hemispheres. RESULTS: A HL was defined as a region where CBFrelative≥1.4 (CBFrelative=CBFHL/CBFcontralateral). HLs, BBB disruption, and HT were found in 9, 15, and 15 patients, respectively. Compared with the patients without HLs, the patients with HLs had a higher incidence of both BBB disruption (100% versus 37.5%; P=0.003) and HT (100% versus 37.5%; P=0.003). Based on the Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score locations, 21 regions of interests displayed HLs. Compared with the regions of interests without HLs, the regions of interests with HLs had a higher incidence of both BBB disruption (42.8% versus 3.9%; P<0.001) and HT (85.7% versus 7.8%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: HLs detected on pretreatment arterial spin-labeling maps may enable the prediction and localization of subsequent BBB disruption and HT.

Evaluation of contrast-enhanced MR angiography in the follow-up of visceral arterial aneurysms after coil embolization.

BACKGROUND: The placement of detachable coil has become the alternative method of treating visceral arterial aneurysms (VAAs). Imaging follow-up is necessary after coil embolization because of frequent incomplete occlusion. PURPOSE: To compare contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) at 3T with a reference standard of digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for the evaluation of VAAs after coil embolization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We treated 15 patients with VAA with coil embolization; eight had splenic artery aneurysms and seven had renal artery aneurysms. We packed the aneurysmal sac preserving native arterial circulation. For follow-up, all patients underwent CE-MRA at 3T and DSA. The results were classified according to coil occlusion: Class 1, complete occlusion; Class 2, residual neck; Class 3, aneurysmal filling. RESULTS: CE-MRA revealed 11 complete occlusions and four residual necks. DSA follow-up showed 12 complete occlusions and three residual necks. No aneurysmal filling occurred after treatment. Comparison of CE-MRA and DSA findings showed 93% agreement (14/15). CE-MRA allowed the detection of a residual neck in one misclassified case in which DSA showed occlusion. Coil-related artifacts were minimal and did not interfere with evaluation of the occlusion status of the VAAs. CONCLUSION: CE-MRA at 3T provides high-quality images equivalent to DSA for the evaluation of VAAs after coil embolization. We suggest that CE-MRA at 3T might be used as the primary method for follow-up of VAAs after coil embolization.

A hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm that improves the image quality of low-tube-voltage coronary CT angiography.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether a hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) algorithm improves image quality at low-tube-voltage coronary CT angiography (CTA) compared with filtered back projection (FBP). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients (seven men, 11 women; mean age, 67.8 years) underwent retrospectively gated coronary CTA at 80 kV with a volume CT dose index (CTDI(vol)) of 18.8 mGy on a 64-MDCT scanner. CT images were reconstructed using only FBP and only HIR. For each patient, CT images subjected to the two different reconstructions were reviewed by two observers. Quantitative image quality parameters-that is, CT attenuation (HU) of the coronary arteries, image noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)-were calculated and compared for the two reconstruction methods and the overall image quality for each reconstruction was visually scored on a 5-point scale. RESULTS: The mean estimated effective radiation dose for 80-kV coronary CTA was 4.7 ± 0.4 (SD) mSv. The two reconstruction methods did not significantly differ with respect to the CT attenuation of the coronary arteries. The image noise was significantly lower with HIR than with FBP (20.3 ± 5.3 vs 49.4 ± 12.0 HU, respectively; p < 0.01), and the CNR was significantly higher with HIR than with FBP (29.8 ± 7.4 vs 12.7 ± 2.9, p < 0.01). The visual scores for image quality were higher with HIR than with FBP (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The HIR algorithm can reduce image noise and improve image quality at low-tube-voltage coronary CTA.

A better effect of cilostazol for reducing in-stent restenosis after femoropopliteal artery stent placement in comparison with ticlopidine.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the preventive effect of cilostazol on in-stent restenosis in patients after superficial femoral artery (SFA) stent placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 28 patients with peripheral arterial disease, who had successfully undergone stent implantation, 15 received cilostazol and 13 received ticlopidine. Primary patency rates were retrospectively analyzed by means of Kaplan-Meier survival curves, with differences between the two medication groups compared by log-rank test. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was applied to assess the effect of cilostazol versus ticlopidine on primary patency. RESULTS: The cilostazol group had significantly better primary patency rates than the ticlopidine group. Cumulative primary patency rates at 12 and 24 months after stent placement were, respectively, 100% and 75% in the cilostazol group versus 39% and 30% in the ticlopidine group (P = 0.0073, log-rank test). In a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model with adjustment for potentially confounding factors, including history of diabetes, cumulative stent length, and poor runoff, patients receiving cilostazol had significantly reduced risk of restenosis (hazard ratio 5.4; P = 0.042). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study showed that cilostazol significantly reduces in-stent stenosis after SFA stent placement compared with ticlopidine.