Comparison of a covered stent and pipeline embolization device in intracranial aneurysm: a propensity score matching analysis.

IF 4.5 1区 医学 Q1 NEUROIMAGING
Xin Tong, Xiaopeng Xue, Mingjiang Sun, Mingyang Han, Peng Jiang, Aihua Liu
{"title":"Comparison of a covered stent and pipeline embolization device in intracranial aneurysm: a propensity score matching analysis.","authors":"Xin Tong, Xiaopeng Xue, Mingjiang Sun, Mingyang Han, Peng Jiang, Aihua Liu","doi":"10.1136/jnis-2023-020878","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Willis covered stent (WCS) and pipeline embolization device (PED) have partly overlapping therapeutic indications. However, the differences of effect between these two treatments remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare clinical outcome, angiographic outcome, and complications following treatment with a WCS versus PED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with intracranial aneurysms treated by a WCS or PED between January 2015 and December 2020 were included. The primary outcomes were complications, clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale score >2), and angiographic outcome (incomplete aneurysm occlusion). Propensity score matching was conducted to adjust for potential confounding factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 94 aneurysms treated by WCS and 698 aneurysms by PED were included. Compared with the PED group, patients in the WCS group are younger, a greater number have a poor condition at admission, a larger proportion of ruptured, non-saccular, and anterior circulation aneurysms, a smaller aneurysm neck width, and less coiling assistance is required. A total of 42 (44.7%) branches were covered by WCS. After adjustment for age, sex, aneurysm type, rupture status, neck size, aneurysm location, and coiling, 50 WCS and PED pairs were examined for internal carotid artery aneurysms. No significant differences were observed in clinical (10.4% vs 2.1%, P=0.206) and angiographic outcomes (12.8% vs 18.2%, P=0.713). However, 27 branches covered by WCS, including 22 ophthalmic arteries and five posterior communicating arteries. Patients in the WCS group had a higher intraoperative complication rate than those in the PED group (28% vs 6%, P=0.008), especially in the occlusion rate of covered branches (51.9% vs 11.1%, P<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The comparable clinical and angiographic outcomes of WCS or PED demonstrate the therapeutic potential of WCS as a viable alternative for aneurysms. However, the complication of occlusion of covered branches might not be negligible.</p>","PeriodicalId":16411,"journal":{"name":"Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"1327-1333"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2023-020878","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROIMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Willis covered stent (WCS) and pipeline embolization device (PED) have partly overlapping therapeutic indications. However, the differences of effect between these two treatments remain unclear.

Objective: To compare clinical outcome, angiographic outcome, and complications following treatment with a WCS versus PED.

Methods: Patients with intracranial aneurysms treated by a WCS or PED between January 2015 and December 2020 were included. The primary outcomes were complications, clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale score >2), and angiographic outcome (incomplete aneurysm occlusion). Propensity score matching was conducted to adjust for potential confounding factors.

Results: A total of 94 aneurysms treated by WCS and 698 aneurysms by PED were included. Compared with the PED group, patients in the WCS group are younger, a greater number have a poor condition at admission, a larger proportion of ruptured, non-saccular, and anterior circulation aneurysms, a smaller aneurysm neck width, and less coiling assistance is required. A total of 42 (44.7%) branches were covered by WCS. After adjustment for age, sex, aneurysm type, rupture status, neck size, aneurysm location, and coiling, 50 WCS and PED pairs were examined for internal carotid artery aneurysms. No significant differences were observed in clinical (10.4% vs 2.1%, P=0.206) and angiographic outcomes (12.8% vs 18.2%, P=0.713). However, 27 branches covered by WCS, including 22 ophthalmic arteries and five posterior communicating arteries. Patients in the WCS group had a higher intraoperative complication rate than those in the PED group (28% vs 6%, P=0.008), especially in the occlusion rate of covered branches (51.9% vs 11.1%, P<0.001).

Conclusion: The comparable clinical and angiographic outcomes of WCS or PED demonstrate the therapeutic potential of WCS as a viable alternative for aneurysms. However, the complication of occlusion of covered branches might not be negligible.

颅内动脉瘤覆盖支架与管道栓塞装置的比较:倾向得分匹配分析。
背景:威利斯覆盖支架(WCS)和管道栓塞装置(PED)的治疗适应症有部分重叠。然而,这两种治疗方法的效果差异仍不明确:比较 WCS 和 PED 治疗后的临床效果、血管造影效果和并发症:方法:纳入 2015 年 1 月至 2020 年 12 月间接受 WCS 或 PED 治疗的颅内动脉瘤患者。主要结果为并发症、临床结果(修改后兰金量表评分>2)和血管造影结果(动脉瘤不完全闭塞)。进行倾向评分匹配以调整潜在的混杂因素:结果:共纳入了94例采用WCS治疗的动脉瘤和698例采用PED治疗的动脉瘤。与 PED 组相比,WCS 组患者更年轻,更多患者入院时病情较差,破裂、非骶尾部动脉瘤和前循环动脉瘤的比例更高,动脉瘤颈宽度更小,需要的卷曲辅助更少。WCS共覆盖了42个(44.7%)分支。在对年龄、性别、动脉瘤类型、破裂状态、瘤颈大小、动脉瘤位置和卷曲进行调整后,对颈内动脉瘤的 50 对 WCS 和 PED 进行了检查。临床结果(10.4% vs 2.1%,P=0.206)和血管造影结果(12.8% vs 18.2%,P=0.713)无明显差异。不过,WCS 覆盖了 27 条分支,包括 22 条眼科动脉和 5 条后交通动脉。WCS 组患者的术中并发症发生率高于 PED 组(28% 对 6%,P=0.008),尤其是被覆盖分支的闭塞率(51.9% 对 11.1%,P=0.008):WCS或PED的临床和血管造影结果相当,这表明WCS作为动脉瘤的一种可行替代方案具有治疗潜力。然而,覆盖分支闭塞的并发症可能不容忽视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
14.60%
发文量
291
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery (JNIS) is a leading peer review journal for scientific research and literature pertaining to the field of neurointerventional surgery. The journal launch follows growing professional interest in neurointerventional techniques for the treatment of a range of neurological and vascular problems including stroke, aneurysms, brain tumors, and spinal compression.The journal is owned by SNIS and is also the official journal of the Interventional Chapter of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Neuroradiology (ANZSNR), the Canadian Interventional Neuro Group, the Hong Kong Neurological Society (HKNS) and the Neuroradiological Society of Taiwan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信