Advertisement

Emergency Radiology

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 139–143 | Cite as

Does including neck CTA in work-up of suspected intracranial hemorrhage add value?

  • William A. Mehan
  • Christopher J. Stapleton
  • Scott B. RaymondEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Neck CT angiography (CTA) is frequently performed in conjunction with head CTA in patients presenting with clinical signs and symptoms concerning for acute intracranial hemorrhage, despite relatively low appropriateness (ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2–6). This decision is sometimes justified by suggesting that CTA neck findings are useful in planning subsequent catheter angiography.

Methods

We investigated the value of neck CTA in patients with suspected acute intracranial hemorrhage by reviewing 220 head and neck CTAs performed in our emergency room over a 24-month period for the indication of hemorrhage or headache. Images were reviewed by two neurointerventionalists to address the value of the neck CTA for planning catheter angiography.

Results

Findings helpful for performing catheter angiography were observed on neck CTA in 22% (Cohen kappa 0.65), and included anatomical arch variants such as a bovine arch, direct vertebral artery arch origin, and aberrant subclavian artery. However, findings that might substantially prolong angiography for more than 10 min if unknown occurred in 5% (Cohen kappa 0.69). Incidental findings prompting additional imaging or significant clinical action occurred in 20%. Subarachnoid hemorrhage on noncontrast head CT was strongly associated with a need for subsequent angiography.

Conclusions

Although CTA neck can provide helpful information for planning catheter angiography, it rarely uncovers findings that would significantly prolong the procedure if unknown. Neck CTA is therefore only recommended in patients with a confirmed intracranial hemorrhage in a pattern consistent with aneurysm or arteriovenous shunt.

Keywords

Intracranial hemorrhage Neck CTA Emergency room Headache 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Tholen AT, de Monyé C, Genders TS, Buskens E, Dippel DW, van der Lugt A, Hunink MG (2010) Suspected carotid artery stenosis: cost-effectiveness of CT angiography in work-up of patients with recent TIA or minor ischemic stroke. Radiology 256(2):585–597.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menon BK, Demchuk AM (2011) Computed tomography angiography in the assessment of patients with stroke/TIA. Neurohospitalist 1(4):187–199.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1941874411418523 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delgado Almandoz JE, Romero JM, Pomerantz SR, Lev MH (2010) Computed tomography angiography of the carotid and cerebral circulation. Radiol Clin N Am 48(2):265–281, vii-viii.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2010.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Josephson SA, Bryant SO, Mak HK, Johnston SC, Dillon WP, Smith WS (2004) Evaluation of carotid stenosis using CT angiography in the initial evaluation of stroke and TIA. Neurology 63(3):457–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knauth M, von Kummer R, Jansen O, Hahnel S, Dorfler A, Sartor K (1997) Potential of CT angiography in acute ischemic stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 18(6):1001–1010Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis JW, Holbrook TL, Hoyt DB, Mackersie RC, Field TO Jr, Shackford SR (1990) Blunt carotid artery dissection: incidence, associated injuries, screening, and treatment. J Trauma 30(12):1514–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nagpal P, Policeni BA, Bathla G, Khandelwal A, Derdeyn C, Skeete D (2017) Blunt cerebrovascular injuries: advances in screening, imaging, and management trends. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 39:406–414.  https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gleason S, Furie KL, Lev MH, O'Donnell J, McMahon PM, Beinfeld MT, Halpern E, Mullins M, Harris G, Koroshetz WJ, Gazelle GS (2001) Potential influence of acute CT on inpatient costs in patients with ischemic stroke. Acad Radiol 8(10):955–964.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80639-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Biffl WL, Moore EE, Ryu RK, Offner PJ, Novak Z, Coldwell DM, Franciose RJ, Burch JM (1998) The unrecognized epidemic of blunt carotid arterial injuries: early diagnosis improves neurologic outcome. Ann Surg 228(4):462–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bo SH, Davidsen EM, Gulbrandsen P, Dietrichs E (2008) Acute headache: a prospective diagnostic work-up of patients admitted to a general hospital. Eur J Neurol 15(12):1293–1299.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2008.02279.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caceres JA, Goldstein JN (2012) Intracranial hemorrhage. Emerg Med Clin North Am 30(3):771–794.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emc.2012.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Delgado Almandoz JE, Romero JM (2011) Advanced CT imaging in the evaluation of hemorrhagic stroke. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 21(2):197–213, ix.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nic.2011.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carstairs SD, Tanen DA, Duncan TD, Nordling OB, Wanebo JE, Paluska TR, Theodore N, Riffenburgh RH (2006) Computed tomographic angiography for the evaluation of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Acad Emerg Med 13(5):486–492.  https://doi.org/10.1197/j.aem.2005.12.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCormack RF, Hutson A (2010) Can computed tomography angiography of the brain replace lumbar puncture in the evaluation of acute-onset headache after a negative noncontrast cranial computed tomography scan? Acad Emerg Med 17(4):444–451.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00694.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salmela MB, Mortazavi S, Jagadeesan BD, Broderick DF, Burns J, Deshmukh TK, Harvey HB, Hoang J, Hunt CH, Kennedy TA, Khalessi AA, Mack W, Patel ND, Perlmutter JS, Policeni B, Schroeder JW, Setzen G, Whitehead MT, Cornelius RS, Corey AS (2017) ACR Appropriateness Criteria((R)) cerebrovascular disease. J Am Coll Radiol 14(5s):S34–s61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.01.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Casserly I, Yadav J (2005) Carotid interventions. In: Casserly I, Sachar R, Yadav J (eds) Manual of peripheral vascular intervention. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bendszus M, Koltzenburg M, Burger R, Warmuth-Metz M, Hofmann E, Solymosi L (1999) Silent embolism in diagnostic cerebral angiography and neurointerventional procedures: a prospective study. Lancet 354(9190):1594–1597.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(99)07083-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lin SC, Trocciola SM, Rhee J, Dayal R, Chaer R, Morrissey NJ, Mureebe L, McKinsey JF, Kent KC, Faries PL (2005) Analysis of anatomic factors and age in patients undergoing carotid angioplasty and stenting. Ann Vasc Surg 19(6):798–804.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10016-005-8045-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Madhwal S, Rajagopal V, Bhatt DL, Bajzer CT, Whitlow P, Kapadia SR (2008) Predictors of difficult carotid stenting as determined by aortic arch angiography. J Invasive Cardiol 20(5):200–204Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heiserman JE, Dean BL, Hodak JA, Flom RA, Bird CR, Drayer BP, Fram EK (1994) Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 15(8):1401–1407 discussion 1408–1411Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dion JE, Gates PC, Fox AJ, Barnett HJ, Blom RJ (1987) Clinical events following neuroangiography: a prospective study. Stroke 18(6):997–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Earnest F, Forbes G, Sandok BA, Piepgras DG, Faust RJ, Ilstrup DM, Arndt LJ (1984) Complications of cerebral angiography: prospective assessment of risk. AJR Am J Roentgenol 142(2):247–253.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.142.2.247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klingebiel R, Kentenich M, Bauknecht HC, Masuhr F, Siebert E, Busch M, Bohner G (2008) Comparative evaluation of 64-slice CT angiography and digital subtraction angiography in assessing the cervicocranial vasculature. Vasc Health Risk Manag 4(4):901–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cohnen M, Wittsack HJ, Assadi S, Muskalla K, Ringelstein A, Poll LW, Saleh A, Modder U (2006) Radiation exposure of patients in comprehensive computed tomography of the head in acute stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 27(8):1741–1745Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mnyusiwalla A, Aviv RI, Symons SP (2009) Radiation dose from multidetector row CT imaging for acute stroke. Neuroradiology 51(10):635–640.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-009-0543-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Manninen AL, Isokangas JM, Karttunen A, Siniluoto T, Nieminen MT (2012) A comparison of radiation exposure between diagnostic CTA and DSA examinations of cerebral and cervicocerebral vessels. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33(11):2038–2042.  https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Britt CJ, Maas AM, Kennedy TA, Hartig GK (2018) Incidental findings on FDG PET/CT in head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 158(3):484–488.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599817742579 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Physician Fee Schedule Search. (2018) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. https://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/search/search-criteria.aspx. Accessed 16 July 2018

Copyright information

© American Society of Emergency Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of Illinois, ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of NeurosurgeryMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations