Treatment Modalities and Long-Term Outcomes in Unruptured Vertebrobasilar Fusiform Aneurysms: A Nationwide Observational Cohort Study.

IF 11 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Stroke Pub Date : 2026-05-01 Epub Date: 2026-05-28 DOI:10.5853/jos.2025.04385
Linggen Dong, Dachao Wei, Xiheng Chen, Mingtao Li, Yang Zhao, Yong Sun, Qingbin Nie, Jun Feng, Guomin Xiao, Jinghua Zhou, Shengli Hu, Lifei Feng, Lifeng Qi, Hongen Liu, Geng Guo, Yufang Li, Renfu Tian, Jianghua Yu, Dianshi Jin, Liang Hao, Tian Tian, Shizhong Zhang, Yang Wang, Liping Liu, Ming Lv
{"title":"Treatment Modalities and Long-Term Outcomes in Unruptured Vertebrobasilar Fusiform Aneurysms: A Nationwide Observational Cohort Study.","authors":"Linggen Dong, Dachao Wei, Xiheng Chen, Mingtao Li, Yang Zhao, Yong Sun, Qingbin Nie, Jun Feng, Guomin Xiao, Jinghua Zhou, Shengli Hu, Lifei Feng, Lifeng Qi, Hongen Liu, Geng Guo, Yufang Li, Renfu Tian, Jianghua Yu, Dianshi Jin, Liang Hao, Tian Tian, Shizhong Zhang, Yang Wang, Liping Liu, Ming Lv","doi":"10.5853/jos.2025.04385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Vertebrobasilar fusiform aneurysms (VBFAs) carry substantial morbidity and mortality, but optimal management for unruptured VBFAs remains unclear. We compared the safety and efficacy of conservative management (CM), stent-assisted coiling (SAC), and flow diverters (FDs) in patients with unruptured VBFAs, focusing on long-term prognosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included data from a nationwide Chinese cohort of patients with vertebrobasilar dissecting aneurysms. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) balanced confounders across groups. The primary outcome was poor prognosis (modified Rankin Scale score >2). Secondary outcomes included aneurysm rupture, ischemic stroke, compression symptoms, and VBFA-related deaths. Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1,115 patients with unruptured VBFAs, 838 (median age, 54 years; 655 men) were included. After IPTW, baseline characteristics were balanced. Median follow-up was 54 months. FD was associated with a lower risk of poor prognosis than CM (OR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.77]; P=0.002), with no difference between CM and SAC. FD also reduced aneurysm rupture (OR, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.60]; P=0.004) and compression symptoms (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.68]; P=0.004) versus CM. Time-to-event analyses further revealed significant differences in vertebral artery lesions and Type I-II VBFAs, whereas no significant differences were observed in basilar or vertebrobasilar junction lesions or in Type III-IV VBFAs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with CM, FD was associated with improved long-term outcomes in unruptured VBFAs, particularly in vertebral artery lesions and Type I-II VBFAs, although residual confounding cannot be excluded.</p>","PeriodicalId":17135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Stroke","volume":"28 2","pages":"250-262"},"PeriodicalIF":11.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13243858/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Stroke","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5853/jos.2025.04385","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: Vertebrobasilar fusiform aneurysms (VBFAs) carry substantial morbidity and mortality, but optimal management for unruptured VBFAs remains unclear. We compared the safety and efficacy of conservative management (CM), stent-assisted coiling (SAC), and flow diverters (FDs) in patients with unruptured VBFAs, focusing on long-term prognosis.

Methods: This study included data from a nationwide Chinese cohort of patients with vertebrobasilar dissecting aneurysms. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) balanced confounders across groups. The primary outcome was poor prognosis (modified Rankin Scale score >2). Secondary outcomes included aneurysm rupture, ischemic stroke, compression symptoms, and VBFA-related deaths. Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Among 1,115 patients with unruptured VBFAs, 838 (median age, 54 years; 655 men) were included. After IPTW, baseline characteristics were balanced. Median follow-up was 54 months. FD was associated with a lower risk of poor prognosis than CM (OR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.77]; P=0.002), with no difference between CM and SAC. FD also reduced aneurysm rupture (OR, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.60]; P=0.004) and compression symptoms (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.68]; P=0.004) versus CM. Time-to-event analyses further revealed significant differences in vertebral artery lesions and Type I-II VBFAs, whereas no significant differences were observed in basilar or vertebrobasilar junction lesions or in Type III-IV VBFAs.

Conclusions: Compared with CM, FD was associated with improved long-term outcomes in unruptured VBFAs, particularly in vertebral artery lesions and Type I-II VBFAs, although residual confounding cannot be excluded.

未破裂椎基底动脉梭状动脉瘤的治疗方式和长期结果:一项全国性的观察队列研究。
背景和目的:椎基底动脉梭状动脉瘤(VBFAs)具有很高的发病率和死亡率,但未破裂的VBFAs的最佳治疗方法尚不清楚。我们比较了保守治疗(CM)、支架辅助盘绕(SAC)和分流器(fd)对未破裂VBFAs患者的安全性和有效性,重点关注长期预后。方法:本研究纳入了来自中国全国椎基底动脉夹层动脉瘤患者队列的数据。治疗加权逆概率(IPTW)平衡各组混杂因素。主要预后为预后不良(改良Rankin量表评分bb0.2)。次要结局包括动脉瘤破裂、缺血性中风、压迫症状和vbfa相关死亡。Logistic回归估计优势比(ORs)和95%置信区间(CIs)。进行亚组分析和敏感性分析。结果:在1115例未破裂的VBFAs患者中,纳入838例(中位年龄54岁,男性655例)。IPTW后,基线特征平衡。中位随访时间为54个月。FD与CM相比,预后不良风险较低(OR为0.48 [95% CI, 0.30 ~ 0.77]; P=0.002), CM与SAC之间无差异。与CM相比,FD还减少了动脉瘤破裂(OR, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.07至0.60];P=0.004)和压迫症状(OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.13至0.68];P=0.004)。时间-事件分析进一步揭示了椎动脉病变和I-II型VBFAs的显著差异,而在基底动脉或椎基底动脉连接处病变或III-IV型VBFAs中未观察到显著差异。结论:与CM相比,FD与未破裂VBFAs的长期预后改善有关,特别是在椎动脉病变和I-II型VBFAs中,尽管不能排除残留的混杂因素。
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
Journal of Stroke
Journal of Stroke CLINICAL NEUROLOGYPERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISE-PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
3.70%
发文量
52
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Stroke (JoS) is a peer-reviewed publication that focuses on clinical and basic investigation of cerebral circulation and associated diseases in stroke-related fields. Its aim is to enhance patient management, education, clinical or experimental research, and professionalism. The journal covers various areas of stroke research, including pathophysiology, risk factors, symptomatology, imaging, treatment, and rehabilitation. Basic science research is included when it provides clinically relevant information. The JoS is particularly interested in studies that highlight characteristics of stroke in the Asian population, as they are underrepresented in the literature. The JoS had an impact factor of 8.2 in 2022 and aims to provide high-quality research papers to readers while maintaining a strong reputation. It is published three times a year, on the last day of January, May, and September. The online version of the journal is considered the main version as it includes all available content. Supplementary issues are occasionally published. The journal is indexed in various databases, including SCI(E), Pubmed, PubMed Central, Scopus, KoreaMed, Komci, Synapse, Science Central, Google Scholar, and DOI/Crossref. It is also the official journal of the Korean Stroke Society since 1999, with the abbreviated title J Stroke.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书