Hemodynamic differences determining rupture and non-rupture in middle cerebral aneurysms after growth

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intracranial aneurysm growth is a significant risk factor for rupture; however, a few aneurysms remain unruptured for long periods, even after growth. Here, we identified hemodynamic features associated with aneurysmal rupture after growth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed nine middle cerebral artery aneurysms that grew during the follow-up period using computational fluid dynamics analysis. Growth patterns of the middle cerebral artery aneurysms were divided into homothetic growth (Type 1), de novo bleb formation (Type 2), and bleb enlargement (Type 3). Hemodynamic parameters of the four ruptured aneurysms after growth were compared with those of the five unruptured aneurysms. RESULTS: Among nine aneurysms (78%), seven were Type 1, one was Type 2, and one was Type 3. Three (43%) Type 1 aneurysms ruptured after growth. Maximum oscillatory shear index after aneurysmal growth was significantly higher in ruptured Type 1 cases than in unruptured Type 1 cases (ruptured vs. unruptured: 0.455 ± 0.007 vs. 0.319 ± 0.042, p = 0.003). In Type 1 cases, a newly emerged high-oscillatory shear index area was frequently associated with rupture, indicating a rupture point. Aneurysm growth was observed in the direction of the high-pressure difference area before enlargement. In Types 2 and 3 aneurysms, the maximum oscillatory shear index decreased slightly, however, the pressure difference values remain unchanged. In Type 3 aneruysm, the maximum OSI and PD values remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that hemodynamic variations and growth pattern changes are crucial in rupture risk determination using computational fluid dynamics analysis. High-pressure difference areas may predict aneurysm enlargement direction. Additionally, high maximum oscillatory shear index values after enlargement in cases with homothetic growth patterns were potential rupture risk factors.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.