Treatment of unruptured intracranial vertebral artery dissection aneurysms with Flow Diverter compared with conventional stent-assisted coiling—a single-center study

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Tongfu Zhang, Weiying Zhong, Donglin Zhou, Yangyang Xu, Maogui Li, Jianfeng Zhuang, Donghai Wang, Wandong Su, Yunyan Wang
{"title":"Treatment of unruptured intracranial vertebral artery dissection aneurysms with Flow Diverter compared with conventional stent-assisted coiling—a single-center study","authors":"Tongfu Zhang,&nbsp;Weiying Zhong,&nbsp;Donglin Zhou,&nbsp;Yangyang Xu,&nbsp;Maogui Li,&nbsp;Jianfeng Zhuang,&nbsp;Donghai Wang,&nbsp;Wandong Su,&nbsp;Yunyan Wang","doi":"10.1007/s00701-024-06398-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><p>Flow diverters (FDs) are being increasingly used off-label for treatment of intracranial vertebral artery dissection aneurysms (IVADAs). However, the safety and efficacy of FDs for unruptured IVADAs remain unclear. This study was performed to investigate whether FDs-alone are safer and more effective than conventional stent-asisted coiling.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>We retrospectively analyzed 152 patients who underwent endovascular stenting from December 2011 to December 2022. The baseline data, aneurysm characteristics, surgical details, perioperative complications, follow-up angiography, and clinical outcomes were collected and compared between patients who underwent stenting with FD-alone versus conventional stent-asisted coiling. Propensity score matching was also conducted.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>All 152 patients underwent successful endovascular therapy. Forty patients were treated with FDs-alone, and 112 were treated with conventional stent-asisted coiling (including 62 with double stents). The complete occlusion rate was 93.75% in the FD group and 93.61% in the conventional stent group (<i>p</i> = 0.979). The complication rate was 5.00% in the FD group and 8.93% in the conventional stent group (<i>p</i> = 0.653). The in-stent restenosis rate was 3.13% in the FD group and 5.32% in the conventional stent group (<i>p</i> = 0.615). The procedure duration was significantly shorter in the FD than conventional stent group (<i>p</i> = 0.034). After propensity score matching, 37 patients with FDs were successfully matched, and the procedure duration was still significantly shorter in the FD group (<i>p</i> = 0.042).</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>FD placement is a safe and effective treatment for IVADAs. It is also a simpler procedure with a shorter operation time than conventional stent placement.</p><p>Trial registration number: ChiCTR2300074171</p><p>ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT06134557</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7370,"journal":{"name":"Acta Neurochirurgica","volume":"166 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00701-024-06398-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Neurochirurgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00701-024-06398-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

Flow diverters (FDs) are being increasingly used off-label for treatment of intracranial vertebral artery dissection aneurysms (IVADAs). However, the safety and efficacy of FDs for unruptured IVADAs remain unclear. This study was performed to investigate whether FDs-alone are safer and more effective than conventional stent-asisted coiling.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 152 patients who underwent endovascular stenting from December 2011 to December 2022. The baseline data, aneurysm characteristics, surgical details, perioperative complications, follow-up angiography, and clinical outcomes were collected and compared between patients who underwent stenting with FD-alone versus conventional stent-asisted coiling. Propensity score matching was also conducted.

Results

All 152 patients underwent successful endovascular therapy. Forty patients were treated with FDs-alone, and 112 were treated with conventional stent-asisted coiling (including 62 with double stents). The complete occlusion rate was 93.75% in the FD group and 93.61% in the conventional stent group (p = 0.979). The complication rate was 5.00% in the FD group and 8.93% in the conventional stent group (p = 0.653). The in-stent restenosis rate was 3.13% in the FD group and 5.32% in the conventional stent group (p = 0.615). The procedure duration was significantly shorter in the FD than conventional stent group (p = 0.034). After propensity score matching, 37 patients with FDs were successfully matched, and the procedure duration was still significantly shorter in the FD group (p = 0.042).

Conclusion

FD placement is a safe and effective treatment for IVADAs. It is also a simpler procedure with a shorter operation time than conventional stent placement.

Trial registration number: ChiCTR2300074171

ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT06134557

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Neurochirurgica
Acta Neurochirurgica 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
342
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The journal "Acta Neurochirurgica" publishes only original papers useful both to research and clinical work. Papers should deal with clinical neurosurgery - diagnosis and diagnostic techniques, operative surgery and results, postoperative treatment - or with research work in neuroscience if the underlying questions or the results are of neurosurgical interest. Reports on congresses are given in brief accounts. As official organ of the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies the journal publishes all announcements of the E.A.N.S. and reports on the activities of its member societies. Only contributions written in English will be accepted.
×
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