Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of PulseRider for treatment of wide-necked intracranial aneurysm-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

PulseRider is a novel self-expanding nickel-titanium (nitinol) stent for treatment of wide-necked aneurysms, which is commonly located at the arterial branches in the brain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of PulseRider for treatment of wide-necked intracranial aneurysm.

Method

We performed a systematic literature search on articles that evaluate the efficacy and safety of PulseRider-assisted coiling of the wide-necked aneurysm from several electronic databases. The primary endpoint was adequate occlusion, defined as Raymond-Roy Class I + Raymond-Roy Class II upon immediate angiography and at six-month follow-up.

Results

There were a total of 157 subjects from six studies. The rate of adequate occlusion on immediate angiography was 90% (95% CI, 85%-94%) and 91% (95% CI, 85%-96%) at six-month follow-up. Of these, Raymond-Roy Class I can be observed in 48% (95% CI, 41%-56%) of aneurysms immediately after coiling, and 64% (95% CI, 55%-72%) of aneurysms on six-month follow-up. Raymond-Roy Class II was found in 30% (95% CI, 23%-37%) of aneurysms immediately after coiling, and 25% (17-33) after six-month follow-up. Complications occur in 5% (95% CI, 1%-8%) of the patients. There were three intraoperative aneurysm rupture, three thrombus formation, three procedure-related posterior cerebral artery strokes, one vessel dissection, and one delayed device thrombosis. There was no procedure/device-related death.

Conclusions

PulseRider-assisted coiling for treatment of patients with wide-necked aneurysm reached 90% adequate occlusion rate that rises up to 91% at sixth month with 5% complication rate.

SUBMITTER: Pranata R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7903548 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposeStent-assisted coiling was initially invented for wide-neck aneurysms, but is now used for smaller berry aneurysms. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficiency of stent-assisted coiling with conventional coiling in treatment of intracranial aneurysms.MethodsA meta-analysis of studies that compared stent-assisted coiling with coiling only was conducted by searching English literatures via Pubmed, Medline and Cochrane Library databases without restricting the publication year. The primary outcomes in this study were immediate occlusion, progressive thrombosis rate, all-complication rate and angiographic recurrence. The secondary outcomes examined were packing density, mortality, permanent complication and thromboembolic complication rate.ResultsTen retrospective cohort studies were included. There is currently only one unfinished randomized study. Although the stent-assisted coiling group tended to show a lower initial occlusion rate than that of the coiling-only group (57.6% versus 68.7%; OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.30-1.44; P = 0.30), it achieved a significantly higher progressive thrombosis rate during follow up compared to that of the coiling only group (37.5% versus 19.4%; OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.95-3.86; P<0.00001) and a significantly lower recurrence rate (16.2% versus 34.4%; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.49; P<0.00001). With respect to safety concerns, the all-complication rate (17.6% versus 15.9%; OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.77-1.62; P = 0.56), mortality rate (9.1% versus 2.6%; OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.68-7.82; P = 0.18), permanent complication rate (5.6% versus 3.9%; OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.96-2.41; P = 0.08) and thromboembolic complication rate (4.2% versus 4.9%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.41-2.38; P = 0.97) did not show significant difference between the two groups.ConclusionsStent-assisted coiling has a lower recurrence rate than conventional coiling. Analysis of complication events did not show any significant difference between the two methods. Despite the findings reported herein, further validation by well-designed prospective studies is needed.

Project description:BackgroundThe safety of extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass in the management of anterior circulation intracranial aneurysms (IAs) remains to be determined. This systematic review aims to summarize the existing evidence and provide guidance for the precise management of IAs.Data sourceWe constructed search strategies and comprehensively searched Pubmed, Medline, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane library.MethodsThis systematic review was actualized according to the PRISMA statement. We evaluated study quality using the methodological index for non-randomized study (MINORS). Effect sizes were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I 2 test. Publication bias was assessed using the Egger's test. The registration number for this systematic review is CRD42023396730.ResultThis systematic review included a total of 21 articles, involving 915 patients. Postoperative bypass patency rate was 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00); short-term follow-up was 98% (95% CI 0.94-1.00); long-term follow-up was 95% (95% CI 0.93-0.97). The long-term follow-up occlusion rate of saphenous vein was higher than that of radial artery (OR 6.10 95% CI 1.04-35.59). Short-term surgery-related mortality was 0.3% (95% CI 0.000-0.012); long-term follow-up was 0.4% (95% CI 0.000-0.013); The proportion of patients with a score of 0-2 on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) during long-term follow-up was 92% (95% CI 0.86-0.98). The incidence rates of long-term follow-up complications were: ischemic 3% (95% CI 0.01-0.06); hemorrhagic 1% (95% CI 0.00-0.03); neurological deficit 1% (95% CI 0.00-0.03); other 3% (95% CI 0.01-0.06).LimitationMost of the included studies were retrospective studies. Studies reporting preoperative status were not sufficient to demonstrate postoperative improvement. Lack of sufficient subgroup information such as aneurysm rupture status.ConclusionEC-IC therapy for anterior circulation IAs has a high safety profile. Higher level of evidence is still needed to support clinical decision.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023396730, identifier: CRD42023396730.

Project description:Background: The benefits and risks of starting anticoagulation therapy, such as direct oral anticoagulations (DOACs) or warfarin, in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a history of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) remain controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of starting oral anticoagulation (OAC) and non-oral anticoagulation in these patients. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from inception to 01 May 2022 for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes for anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation patients with intracranial hemorrhage. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to evaluate bias risks for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. An effects model was applied to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Results: We analyzed data from two randomized controlled trials (304 patients) and seven Cohort studies (17,477 patients). Compared to non-oral anticoagulation, starting oral anticoagulation therapy reduced the risk of Ischemic Stroke/Systemic Embolism (SE) (aHR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55-0.57) and all-cause death (aHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35-0.80) in atrial fibrillation patients and a prior history intracranial hemorrhage. Starting oral anticoagulation therapy did not increase the risk of recurrent intracranial hemorrhage (aHR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.66-1.74), but increased the risk of major bleeding (aHR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.00-1.91) than no oral anticoagulation therapy. The DOACs had a lower risk of Ischemic Stroke/SE (aHR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.70-1.00), recurrent intracranial hemorrhage (aHR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.49-0.82), and all-cause death (aHR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48-0.88) compared to warfarin. According to subgroup analyses, starting oral anticoagulation therapy have a higher risk of recurrent intracranial hemorrhage than non-oral anticoagulation therapy (aHR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.36-1.81) for Asians. Conclusion: After intracranial hemorrhage in atrial fibrillation patients, restarting or initiating oral anticoagulation therapy decreased the risk of Ischemic Stroke/SE and all-cause death but did not increase the risk for recurrent intracranial hemorrhage. Direct oral anticoagulations have better efficacy and safety than warfarin if oral anticoagulation therapy is started. However, starting oral anticoagulation increases the risk for recurrent intracranial hemorrhage in the Asian region.