Dataset Information

Late adverse events in coiled ruptured aneurysms with incomplete occlusion at 6-month angiographic follow-up.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Patients with coiled ruptured aneurysms with incomplete occlusion at 6 months are not only at risk for rebleed during further follow-up but also for complications of angiographic follow-up and retreatment, and for progressive mass effect by uncontrollable aneurysm growth. We assessed the frequency and outcome of all these possible aneurysm-related events in 124 patients with incompletely occluded aneurysms at 6 months during a follow-up of 419 patient-years.

Materials and methods

Between 1994 and 2007, 901 ruptured aneurysms were coiled and 713 (79%) had 6-month angiographic follow-up, of which 124 were incompletely occluded (17%). These 124 patients were followed for a mean of 41 months (median, 30 months; range, 1-150 months).

Results

During follow-up, 307 angiograms were obtained without complications. Of 124 aneurysms, 88 were retreated (71%). Fifteen aneurysms were retreated more than once. Altogether, 124 additional treatments were performed, and no complications occurred (0%; 95% CI, 0.0-3.6%). Four aneurysms rebled, causing death in 2 patients. Another 4 patients experienced progressive mass effect by growth of the coiled aneurysm, leading to death in 1. The annual event rate was 1.9%, the annual mortality was 0.7%, and the annual rebleed rate was 1.0% (8, 3, and 4 in 419 patient-years).

Conclusions

In this study of patients with coiled ruptured aneurysms with incomplete occlusion at 6 months, a strategy of imaging follow-up and retreatment when possible leads to a low incidence of serious adverse events. Rebleeding and progressive mass effect of the aneurysm were responsible for these events, not complications from additional treatment or angiographic follow-up.

SUBMITTER: Ferns SP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7963999 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposeReported rates of recanalization following coil embolization vary widely across studies. Some confounders are known to affect outcomes but others remain questionable. In the current study, we assess differences in reported angiographic outcomes for cerebral aneurysms treated with coil embolization as a function of single vs multiple readers and site investigator vs core laboratory settings.Materials and methodsOur systematic review covered 1999-2011 by using Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE. Search terms were subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracranial aneurysms, endovascular treatment, and coiling. Inclusion criteria were >50 aneurysms and available imaging follow-up. Study characteristics of interest were readers at the treating site(s) or at an independent core imaging facility, single vs multiple readers, number of aneurysms treated, mean aneurysm size, mean follow-up time, coil type, initial rupture status, and angiographic follow-up. We defined "unfavorable angiographic outcome" as either "recanalization," <90% occlusion, or "incomplete occlusion."ResultsThere were 104 (2.6%) of 4022 studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 22,134 treated aneurysms, of which 15,969 (72.1%) had reported angiographic follow-up. The overall unfavorable outcome rate was 17.8% (2955/15,969 aneurysms). Eight (7.7%) of 104 studies reported core laboratory readings in which the pooled rate of unfavorable outcomes was 0.23 (95% CI, 0.19-0.28) compared with 0.16 (95% CI, 0.14-0.18) in readings from the treating sites (P < .001). The multivariate meta-regression suggested that core laboratory interpretation was significant for unfavorable outcomes (OR, 5.60; 95% CI, 2.01-15.60; P = .001), after adjustment for initial rupture status, aneurysm size, follow-up duration, and coil type. No significant association was found with use of multiple readers.ConclusionsCore laboratory studies tend to report higher rates of unfavorable outcomes compared with self-reported studies.

Project description:Objective: Ruptured dissecting aneurysms of the intracranial vertebral arteries exhibit an extraordinarily high risk for morbidity and mortality and are prone to re-rupture. Therefore, early treatment is mandatory to induce stagnation of the critical dynamic mural process. Appropriate endovascular approaches are segment sacrifice and reconstruction, however, both carry specific risks and benefits. To date most studies discuss only one of these approaches and focus on one specific device or technique. Therefore, our study aimed to present our experiences with both techniques, providing a considered approach on when to perform endovascular reconstruction or sacrifice. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage in our database, suffering from dissecting aneurysms of the intradural vertebral arteries and treated endovascularly in the acute setting. A total of 16 cases were included. Clinical history, radiologic findings and outcomes were analyzed. Results: In 7 patients a reconstructive approach was chosen with 4 of them receiving stent-assisted coiling as primary strategy. One of the 7 patients suffered early re-bleeding due to progression of the dissection and therefore treatment was augmented with implantation of 2 flow diverters. The remaining 2 patients were primarily treated with flow diverters in telescoping technique. In 9 patients a deconstructive approach was followed: 6 patients were treated with proximal coil-occlusion of the V4 segment, 3 patients received distal coiling of the V4 segment. Two patients died (GOS 1) in the subacute stage due to sequelae of recurrent episodes of raised intracranial pressure and parenchymal hemorrhage. Two patients kept severe disability (GOS 3), six patients had moderate disability (GOS 4) and seven patients showed full recovery (GOS 5). None of the patients suffered from a procedural or postprocedural ischemic stroke. Conclusions: In patients with good collateral vascularization, proximal, or distal partial segment sacrifice via with endovascular coil occlusion seems to yield the best risk-benefit ratio for treatment of ruptured dissecting V4 aneurysms, especially since no continued anticoagulation is required and possibly essential surgery remains feasible in this scenario. If possible, PICA occlusion should be avoided-although even proximal PICA occlusion can become necessary, when weighing against the risk of an otherwise untreated ruptured V4 dissecting aneurysm. Contrarily, if the dominant V4 segment is affected, the hemodynamic asymmetry prohibits occlusion and necessitates reconstruction of the respective segment. For this, implants with high metal coverage treating the entire affected segment appear to be the most promising approach.

Project description:PurposeThe PEVAR Trial demonstrated that compared to open femoral exposure, elective percutaneous endovascular AAA repair (ePEVAR) is associated with decreased perioperative morbidity and access site complications. We hypothesized that PEVAR for ruptured AAA (rPEVAR) may also improve perioperative morbidity compared to open femoral exposure (rEVAR). There are currently no reports that evaluate the utility and outcomes of rPEVAR.Materials and methodsFrom 2015 to 2021, all patients who underwent an endovascular repair of a ruptured AAA at a single institution were included in the study and grouped into rPEVAR and rEVAR. Demographics, procedural details (successful preclose technique, conversion to femoral cutdown), postoperative variables (blood transfusion, ICU and hospital length of stay) and short-term outcomes (30-day major adverse events (30-day MAE) and 30-day femoral access-site complications (30-day FAAC)) were collected and compared with 50 historical ePEVAR patients from the PEVAR Trial. Statistical significance was determined using χ 2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables.Results35 patients were identified (21 rPEVAR; 14 rEVAR), 86% were male with a mean age of 72 ± 9 years. All patients underwent emergent endovascular aortic repair with 100% technical success. Seventeen patients (49%) presented with evidence of hemorrhagic shock and 22 patients (63%) had blood transfusion. 30-day MAE occurred in 12 patients (34%) (7 rPEVAR; 5 rEVAR). There was no difference in demographic, perioperative outcomes and 30-day MAE rate between rPEVAR and rEVAR patients. Compared to ePEVAR patient (from PEVAR trial), rPEVAR patients had higher rate of 30-day MAE (34% vs. 6%; p < 0.006) but no difference in 30-day FAAC (19% vs. 12%; p = 0.54). The success rate of the preclose technique was higher in ePEVAR compared to rPEVAR (96% vs. 76%; p = 0.02), but the rate of conversion to femoral cutdown was similar between the two groups (10% vs. 4%; p = 0.57).ConclusionEmergent rPEVAR appears to have similar outcomes when compared to rEVAR. Although patients undergoing rPEVAR have higher 30-day major adverse events rate compared to ePEVAR, the method of percutaneous femoral cannulation does not appear to increase the overall procedural or 30-day femoral artery access-site complications.