Periprocedural Safety and Feasibility of the New LVIS EVO Device for Stent-Assisted Coiling of Intracranial Aneurysms: An Observational Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stent-assisted treatment techniques can be an effective treatment option for intracranial aneurysms. The aim of this study was to evaluate the periprocedural feasibility and safety of the new LVIS EVO stent for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with intracranial aneurysms treated with the LVIS EVO in 11 European neurovascular centers were retrospectively reviewed. Patient and aneurysm characteristics, procedural parameters, immediate grade of occlusion, and technical and clinical complications were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients with 59 aneurysms were treated with the LVIS EVO device; 57.6% of the aneurysms were incidental; 15.3% were acutely ruptured; 15.3% were recanalized or residual aneurysms; and 11.9% were treated for symptoms other than acute hemorrhage. The most frequent aneurysm locations were the middle cerebral artery (25.4%) and the anterior communicating artery (22.0%). The rate of immediate successful deployment was 93.2%. In 6.8% (n = 4) of cases, additional in-stent angioplasty was needed. The immediate complete occlusion rate was 54.2%, while there was a residual aneurysm in 35.6% and a residual neck in 10.2%. Periprocedural technical complications occurred in 7/59 treatments (11.9%; the most frequent technical complication [n = 3] was thrombus formation), which all resolved completely without clinical sequelae. Postprocedural neurologic complications occurred after 4/59 treatments (6.8%; 2 transient ischemic attacks, 1 minor stroke, 1 major stroke), of which only 1 persistent complication was directly related to the procedure (minor stroke in the vascular territory distal to the stent). CONCLUSIONS: The LVIS EVO stent is a safe, feasible device for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms.

Glioblastomas vs. lymphomas: more diagnostic certainty by using susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI).

PURPOSE: It can be difficult to differentiate glioblastomas from lymphomas using only standard MR images. There are references suggesting that it might be possible to differentiate these tumors using susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI). The purpose of this study is to prove the diagnostic benefit using susceptibility-weighted images. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three neuroradiologists tried to differentiate 4 histologically verified lymphomas from 11 glioblastomas in retrospect. They first viewed the conventional MR images and declared a diagnosis with a grade of certainty. Afterwards they additionally reviewed the susceptibility-weighted images. RESULTS: Glioblastomas have a clearly higher grade of susceptibility signals than lymphomas. By additionally using susceptibility-weighted images, the radiologists determined the correct diagnosis in 82.2 % of the cases. Without susceptibility-weighted images, the diagnosis was correct in 75.5 % of the cases. The subjective gain of certainty was 16.5 %. If there were no intratumoral susceptibility signals (ITSS) (grade 1), the sensitivity for diagnosing a lymphoma was 70 % and the specificity was 100 %. The sensitivity for diagnosing a glioblastoma was 90.5 % and the specificity was 100 % if there was a high rate of intratumoral susceptibility signals (grade 3). CONCLUSION: Susceptibility-weighted images are an additional tool in clinical practice for determining the correct diagnosis. The differentiation between glioblastomas and lymphomas and the certainty of the determined diagnosis are better. Therefore, we recommend adding susceptibility-weighted imaging to the clinical MR tumor protocol.