LVIS versus enterprise stents for stent-assisted coiling of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Neuroradiology Pub Date : 2025-10-02 DOI:10.1007/s00234-025-03748-1

Lucca Tamara Alves Carretta, Ocilio Ribeiro Gonçalves, Mariana Lee Han, Kenzo Ogasawara Donato, Yasmin Picanço Silva, Luciano Falcão, Rian Barreto Arrais Rodrigues de Morais, Nicole Baptista de Oliveira, Mariana Letícia de Bastos Maximiano, Ahmet Günkan

{"title":"LVIS versus enterprise stents for stent-assisted coiling of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Lucca Tamara Alves Carretta, Ocilio Ribeiro Gonçalves, Mariana Lee Han, Kenzo Ogasawara Donato, Yasmin Picanço Silva, Luciano Falcão, Rian Barreto Arrais Rodrigues de Morais, Nicole Baptista de Oliveira, Mariana Letícia de Bastos Maximiano, Ahmet Günkan","doi":"10.1007/s00234-025-03748-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical and angiographic outcomes of the LVIS versus the Enterprise stent for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms (IAs).Methods: Eligible studies were extracted from PubMed, Scopus, and Embase comparing LVIS/Enterprise. Data on angiographic occlusion rates, neurological deficits, in-stent stenosis, hemorrhagic complications, thromboembolic complications and aneurysm recanalization were analyzed with statistical methods.Results: 5 observational studies (912 patients: 457 treated with LVIS and 455 with Enterprise) were analyzed. LVIS was linked to a significantly lower likelihood of Raymond-Roy Occlusion Classification (RROC) Class 3 (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.13-0.71; I²=0%) and aneurysm recanalization (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.18-0.82; I²=0%). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups regarding mRS 0-2, RROC Class 1 or 2, or the incidence of neurological deficits, in-stent stenosis, hemorrhagic or thromboembolic events.Conclusion: LVIS and Enterprise demonstrate safety and efficacy in the endovascular management of IAs. LVIS may provide improved angiographic outcomes by lowering the risk of recurrence and incomplete occlusion. These findings support its potential advantage in treating complex aneurysms. Further confirmation through randomized controlled trials (RCT) is needed.","PeriodicalId":19422,"journal":{"name":"Neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-025-03748-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical and angiographic outcomes of the LVIS versus the Enterprise stent for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms (IAs).

Methods: Eligible studies were extracted from PubMed, Scopus, and Embase comparing LVIS/Enterprise. Data on angiographic occlusion rates, neurological deficits, in-stent stenosis, hemorrhagic complications, thromboembolic complications and aneurysm recanalization were analyzed with statistical methods.

Results: 5 observational studies (912 patients: 457 treated with LVIS and 455 with Enterprise) were analyzed. LVIS was linked to a significantly lower likelihood of Raymond-Roy Occlusion Classification (RROC) Class 3 (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.13-0.71; I²=0%) and aneurysm recanalization (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.18-0.82; I²=0%). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups regarding mRS 0-2, RROC Class 1 or 2, or the incidence of neurological deficits, in-stent stenosis, hemorrhagic or thromboembolic events.

Conclusion: LVIS and Enterprise demonstrate safety and efficacy in the endovascular management of IAs. LVIS may provide improved angiographic outcomes by lowering the risk of recurrence and incomplete occlusion. These findings support its potential advantage in treating complex aneurysms. Further confirmation through randomized controlled trials (RCT) is needed.

查看原文本刊更多论文

LVIS与企业支架相比用于支架辅助颅内动脉瘤盘绕：一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

目的：本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较LVIS与Enterprise支架治疗颅内动脉瘤（IAs）的临床和血管造影结果。方法：从PubMed、Scopus和Embase中提取符合条件的研究，比较LVIS/Enterprise。用统计学方法分析血管造影闭塞率、神经功能缺损、支架内狭窄、出血性并发症、血栓栓塞并发症和动脉瘤再通的数据。结果：分析了5项观察性研究（912例患者：457例LVIS治疗，455例Enterprise治疗）。LVIS与Raymond-Roy闭塞分类（RROC） 3类（RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.13-0.71; I²=0%）和动脉瘤再通（RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.18-0.82; I²=0%）的可能性显著降低有关。两组在mRS 0-2、RROC 1级或2级、神经功能缺损、支架内狭窄、出血或血栓栓塞事件发生率方面无统计学差异。结论：LVIS和Enterprise在血管内治疗IAs方面具有安全性和有效性。LVIS可以通过降低复发和不完全闭塞的风险来改善血管造影结果。这些发现支持了它在治疗复杂动脉瘤方面的潜在优势。需要通过随机对照试验（RCT）进一步证实。

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

Neuroradiology 医学-核医学

CiteScore

5.30

自引率

3.60%

发文量

214

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Neuroradiology aims to provide state-of-the-art medical and scientific information in the fields of Neuroradiology, Neurosciences, Neurology, Psychiatry, Neurosurgery, and related medical specialities. Neuroradiology as the official Journal of the European Society of Neuroradiology receives submissions from all parts of the world and publishes peer-reviewed original research, comprehensive reviews, educational papers, opinion papers, and short reports on exceptional clinical observations and new technical developments in the field of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention. The journal has subsections for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Advanced Neuroimaging, Paediatric Neuroradiology, Head-Neck-ENT Radiology, Spine Neuroradiology, and for submissions from Japan. Neuroradiology aims to provide new knowledge about and insights into the function and pathology of the human nervous system that may help to better diagnose and treat nervous system diseases. Neuroradiology is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the COPE core practices. Neuroradiology prefers articles that are free of bias, self-critical regarding limitations, transparent and clear in describing study participants, methods, and statistics, and short in presenting results. Before peer-review all submissions are automatically checked by iThenticate to assess for potential overlap in prior publication.