Comparison of flow diverter alone versus flow diverter with coiling for large and giant intracranial aneurysms: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

IF 4.5 1区 医学 Q1 NEUROIMAGING
Rahim Abo Kasem, Zachary Hubbard, Conor Cunningham, Hani Almorawed, Julio Isidor, Imad Samman Tahhan, Mohammad-Mahdi Sowlat, Sofia Babool, Layal Abodest, Alejandro M Spiotta
{"title":"Comparison of flow diverter alone versus flow diverter with coiling for large and giant intracranial aneurysms: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.","authors":"Rahim Abo Kasem, Zachary Hubbard, Conor Cunningham, Hani Almorawed, Julio Isidor, Imad Samman Tahhan, Mohammad-Mahdi Sowlat, Sofia Babool, Layal Abodest, Alejandro M Spiotta","doi":"10.1136/jnis-2024-022845","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Large and giant intracranial aneurysms pose treatment challenges. The benefit-risk balance of flow diverters (FDs) alone versus FDs with coiling remains unclear. This study aimed to compare these two strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science was performed up to October 2024. Studies comparing FDs with or without adjunctive coiling in large/giant intracranial aneurysms were included. The primary outcome was complete aneurysm occlusion, defined by the Raymond-Roy Occlusion Classification. Additional outcomes included procedural and postprocedural complications. Data were analyzed using a random effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>15 studies with 1130 patients were analyzed, with 557 in the FD alone group and 573 in the FD+coiling group. The meta-analysis revealed that FD+coiling significantly improved complete aneurysm occlusion rates (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.40, P=0.03). While overall ischemic complications were significantly lower in the FD alone group, a sensitivity analysis showed no significant difference (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.23, P=0.13). Subgroup analysis of fusiform aneurysms showed no significant difference in complete aneurysm occlusion rates (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.40, P=0.82). Procedural and hemorrhagic complications did not differ significantly, and no publication bias was detected in the results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Combining FDs with coiling improved complete aneurysm occlusion rates in large and giant saccular intracranial aneurysms, although the impact on complications remains controversial. Further investigation into the benefit-risk ratio of this combined approach is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":16411,"journal":{"name":"Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","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-2024-022845","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: Large and giant intracranial aneurysms pose treatment challenges. The benefit-risk balance of flow diverters (FDs) alone versus FDs with coiling remains unclear. This study aimed to compare these two strategies.

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science was performed up to October 2024. Studies comparing FDs with or without adjunctive coiling in large/giant intracranial aneurysms were included. The primary outcome was complete aneurysm occlusion, defined by the Raymond-Roy Occlusion Classification. Additional outcomes included procedural and postprocedural complications. Data were analyzed using a random effects model.

Results: 15 studies with 1130 patients were analyzed, with 557 in the FD alone group and 573 in the FD+coiling group. The meta-analysis revealed that FD+coiling significantly improved complete aneurysm occlusion rates (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.40, P=0.03). While overall ischemic complications were significantly lower in the FD alone group, a sensitivity analysis showed no significant difference (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.23, P=0.13). Subgroup analysis of fusiform aneurysms showed no significant difference in complete aneurysm occlusion rates (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.40, P=0.82). Procedural and hemorrhagic complications did not differ significantly, and no publication bias was detected in the results.

Conclusions: Combining FDs with coiling improved complete aneurysm occlusion rates in large and giant saccular intracranial aneurysms, although the impact on complications remains controversial. Further investigation into the benefit-risk ratio of this combined approach is warranted.

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