Feasibility, Safety, and Efficacy of Endovascular vs. Surgical Treatment of Unruptured Multi-Sac Intracranial Aneurysms in a Single-Center Retrospective Series.

IF 1.2 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurointervention Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-17 DOI:10.5469/neuroint.2024.00108
Lukas Goertz, Marco Timmer, David Zopfs, Kenan Kaya, Carsten Gietzen, Jonathan Kottlors, Lenhard Pennig, Marc Schlamann, Roland Goldbrunner, Gerrit Brinker, Christoph Kabbasch
{"title":"Feasibility, Safety, and Efficacy of Endovascular vs. Surgical Treatment of Unruptured Multi-Sac Intracranial Aneurysms in a Single-Center Retrospective Series.","authors":"Lukas Goertz, Marco Timmer, David Zopfs, Kenan Kaya, Carsten Gietzen, Jonathan Kottlors, Lenhard Pennig, Marc Schlamann, Roland Goldbrunner, Gerrit Brinker, Christoph Kabbasch","doi":"10.5469/neuroint.2024.00108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Multi-sac aneurysms (MSAs) are not uncommon, but studies on their management are scarce. This study aims to evaluate and compare the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of MSAs treated with either clipping or coiling after interdisciplinary case discussion at our center.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed MSAs treated by microsurgical clipping, coiling, or stent-assisted coiling (SAC). Treatment modalities, complications, angiographic results, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Major neurological events were defined as a safety endpoint and complete occlusion as an efficacy endpoint.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety patients (mean age, 53.2±11.0 years; 73 [81.1%] females) with MSAs met our inclusion criteria (clipping, 50; coiling, 19; SAC, 21). Most aneurysms were located in the middle cerebral artery (48.9%). All clipping procedures were technically successful, but endovascular treatment failed in 1 coiling case, and a switch from coiling to SAC was required in 2 cases. The major event rates were 4.0% after clipping (1 major stroke and 1 intracranial hemorrhage) and 0% after endovascular therapy (P=0.667). At mid-term angiographic follow-up (mean 12.0±8.9 months), all 37 followed clipped aneurysms were completely occluded, compared to 8/17 (41.7%) after coiling and 11/15 (73.3%) after SAC (P<0.001). Coiling was significantly associated with incomplete occlusion in the adjusted analysis (odds ratio, 11.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.7-52.6; P=0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both endovascular and surgical treatment were feasible and safe for MSAs. As coiling was associated with comparatively high recanalization rates, endovascular treatment may be preferred with stent support.</p>","PeriodicalId":19140,"journal":{"name":"Neurointervention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11222680/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurointervention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5469/neuroint.2024.00108","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Multi-sac aneurysms (MSAs) are not uncommon, but studies on their management are scarce. This study aims to evaluate and compare the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of MSAs treated with either clipping or coiling after interdisciplinary case discussion at our center.

Materials and methods: We retrospectively analyzed MSAs treated by microsurgical clipping, coiling, or stent-assisted coiling (SAC). Treatment modalities, complications, angiographic results, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Major neurological events were defined as a safety endpoint and complete occlusion as an efficacy endpoint.

Results: Ninety patients (mean age, 53.2±11.0 years; 73 [81.1%] females) with MSAs met our inclusion criteria (clipping, 50; coiling, 19; SAC, 21). Most aneurysms were located in the middle cerebral artery (48.9%). All clipping procedures were technically successful, but endovascular treatment failed in 1 coiling case, and a switch from coiling to SAC was required in 2 cases. The major event rates were 4.0% after clipping (1 major stroke and 1 intracranial hemorrhage) and 0% after endovascular therapy (P=0.667). At mid-term angiographic follow-up (mean 12.0±8.9 months), all 37 followed clipped aneurysms were completely occluded, compared to 8/17 (41.7%) after coiling and 11/15 (73.3%) after SAC (P<0.001). Coiling was significantly associated with incomplete occlusion in the adjusted analysis (odds ratio, 11.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.7-52.6; P=0.001).

Conclusion: Both endovascular and surgical treatment were feasible and safe for MSAs. As coiling was associated with comparatively high recanalization rates, endovascular treatment may be preferred with stent support.

单中心回顾性系列研究中血管内治疗与手术治疗未破裂多间隙颅内动脉瘤的可行性、安全性和有效性对比。
目的:多囊动脉瘤(MSA)并不少见,但有关其治疗的研究却很少。本研究旨在评估和比较本中心经过多学科病例讨论后,采用夹闭或卷曲术治疗多腔动脉瘤的可行性、安全性和有效性:我们回顾性分析了采用显微外科剪切术、卷绕术或支架辅助卷绕术(SAC)治疗的MSA。对治疗方式、并发症、血管造影结果和临床疗效进行了评估。主要神经事件被定义为安全终点,完全闭塞被定义为疗效终点:90例MSA患者(平均年龄为53.2±11.0岁;73例[81.1%]为女性)符合纳入标准(剪除50例;卷绕19例;SAC 21例)。大多数动脉瘤位于大脑中动脉(48.9%)。所有夹闭手术在技术上都很成功,但有1例动脉瘤夹闭手术的血管内治疗失败,有2例动脉瘤需要从夹闭手术转为SAC手术。剪切术后的主要事件发生率为4.0%(1例严重中风和1例颅内出血),血管内治疗后的主要事件发生率为0%(P=0.667)。在中期血管造影随访中(平均 12.0±8.9 个月),所有 37 个随访的剪切动脉瘤均完全闭塞,相比之下,8/17(41.7%)的动脉瘤在卷绕治疗后闭塞,11/15(73.3%)的动脉瘤在 SAC 治疗后闭塞:血管内治疗和手术治疗对于MSA都是可行和安全的。由于旋切术的再闭塞率相对较高,因此在支架支持下,血管内治疗可能是首选。
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
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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