Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31403834›Full record

ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2020

Residuals, recurrences and re-treatment after endovascular repair of intracranial aneurysms: A retrospective methodological comparison.

Jens J Froelich, Nicholas Cheung, Johan Ab de Lange, Jessica Monkhorst, Michael W Carr, Reade DeLeacy

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jens J FroelichDepartment of Medical Imaging and Interventional Neuroradiology, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0676-1639
Nicholas CheungDepartment of Medical Imaging and Interventional Neuroradiology, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Australia.
Johan Ab de LangeDepartment of Medical Imaging and Interventional Neuroradiology, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Australia.
Jessica MonkhorstDepartment of Medical Imaging and Interventional Neuroradiology, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Australia.
Michael W CarrDepartment of Medical Imaging and Interventional Neuroradiology, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Australia.
Reade DeLeacyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Cerebrovascular Center, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIncomplete aneurysm occlusions and re-treatment rates of 52 and 10-30%, respectively, have been reported following endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms, raising clinical concerns regarding procedural efficacy. We compare residual, recurrence and re-treatment rates subject to different endovascular techniques in both ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms at a comprehensive state-wide tertiary neurovascular centre in Australia.

methodsMedical records, procedural and follow-up imaging studies of all patients who underwent endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms between July 2010 and July 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Residuals, recurrences and re-treatment rates were assessed regarding initial aneurysm rupture status and applied endovascular technique: primary coiling, balloon- and stent-assisted coiling and flow diversion.

resultsAmong 233 aneurysms, residual, recurrence and re-treatment rates were 27, 11.2 and 9.4%, respectively. Compared with unruptured aneurysms, similar residual and recurrence (p > .05), but higher re-treatment rates (4.5% vs. 19%; p < .001) were found for ruptured aneurysms. Residual, recurrence and re-treatment rates were: 13.3, 16 and 12% for primary coiling; 12, 12 and 10.7% for balloon-assisted coiling; 14.9, 7.5 and 4.5% for stent-assisted coiling; 91.9, 0 and 5.4% for flow diversion. Stent-assistance and flow-diversion were associated with lower recurrence and re-treatment rates, when compared with primary- and balloon-assisted coiling (p < .05).

conclusionsResiduals and recurrences after endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms are less common than previously reported. Stent assistance and flow diversion seem associated with reduced recurrence- and re-treatment rates, when compared with primary- and balloon-assisted coiling. Restrained use of stents in ruptured aneurysms may be a contributing factor for higher recurrence/retreatment rates compared to unruptured aneurysms.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAneurysm, RupturedAngiography, Digital SubtractionEndovascular ProceduresFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntracranial AneurysmMaleMiddle AgedRecurrenceRetreatmentRetrospective StudiesStentsEndovascularintracranial aneurysmrecurrenceresidual

Identifiers

PMID31403834
PMCPMC6997995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.