• Journal of neurosurgery · Mar 2024

    Safety and effectiveness of stent-assisted coiling with adjunctive techniques in ruptured acute aneurysms: a propensity score-matched cohort study.

    • Ziwei Chen, Yanhong Xin, Liang Zou, Ji Ma, and Chengbao Yang.
    • 1Liaoyang Central Hospital Base of Jinzhou Medical University, Liaoyang City, Liaoning Province, China.
    • J. Neurosurg. 2024 Mar 1; 140 (3): 809818809-818.

    ObjectiveThe use of stent-assisted coiling (SAC) in acute subarachnoid hemorrhage cases is associated with higher incidence rates of bleeding and ischemic complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the SAC technique in the treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms (RIAs).MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with RIAs treated with SAC or coiling alone (CA). Univariate analysis compared clinical information between the two groups. Propensity score matching was used to select patients for comparison and analyze surgical complications, prognosis, and imaging outcomes in both groups.ResultsA total of 394 aneurysms were included, and 272 aneurysms remained after application of propensity score matching, with an equal distribution of 136 cases in both the SAC and CA groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the immediate postoperative outcomes between the two groups (63.2% of SAC patients achieved class 1 on the Raymond-Roy occlusion classification scale vs 58.8% of CA patients, difference [95% CI] 4.4% [-0.076 to 0.163]; 33.1% achieved class 2 vs 38.2%, 5.1% [-0.065 to 0.170]; 3.7% achieved class 3 vs 2.9%, 0.8% [-0.047 to 0.062], p = 0.506). At the 1-year follow-up, the SAC group exhibited higher rates of complete occlusion (59.5% vs 42.4%, 17.1% [0.040-0.294]) and stability (24.0% vs 19.2%, 4.8% [-0.061 to 0.156]), while experiencing lower rates of improvement (12.4% vs 22.4%, 10.0% [0.001-0.201]) and recanalization (4.1% vs 16.0%, 11.9% [0.036-0.120]), with statistically significant differences in these outcomes (p < 0.001). No significant disparities were observed in clinical outcomes in terms of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores at discharge (76.5% vs 77.2% had mRS score 0-2, 0.7% [-0.098 to 0.113]; 23.5% vs 22.8% had mRS score 3-6, 0.7% [-0.098 to 0.113], p = 0.886) and 1-year follow-up (90.8% vs 92.2% had mRS score 0-2, 1.4% [-0.063 to 0.091]; 9.2% vs 7.8% had mRS score 3-6, 1.4% [-0.063 to 0.091], p = 0.683). Intraoperative rupture occurred more frequently in the SAC group compared with the CA group, although the difference was not statistically significant (5.1% vs 2.9%, 2.2% [-0.035 to 0.081], p = 0.356). The SAC group demonstrated a higher incidence of intraoperative thrombosis, but the difference was not statistically significant (8.1% vs 2.9%, 5.2% [-0.010 to 0.117], p = 0.063). Postoperative thrombosis in the SAC group was 3 times higher, but this difference was not statistically significant (6.6% vs 2.2%, 4.4% [-0.013, 0.106], p = 0.076). The surgery-related mortality rates did not differ significantly between the two groups (4.4% vs 5.9%, 1.5% [-0.048 to 0.077], p = 0.583).ConclusionsAlthough stent treatment for RIA results in some incidents of complications, it is safe and effective. Besides, the SAC group showed better vascular imaging results compared with the CA group.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.