ArticleCureus2020
Endovascular Treatment of Giant Intracranial Aneurysms.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Flow Diversion vs. Coiling for Large and Giant Intracranial Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparison of coiling followed by staged-flow diversion and flow diversion-assisted coiling for intracranial very large and giant aneurysms of the internal carotid artery.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective Giant intracranial aneurysms (GIAs) are associated with a high risk of rupture and have a high mortality rate when they rupture (65-100%). The traditional microsurgical approach to secure these lesions is challenging, and as such endovascular embolization has been increasingly selected as a treatment option. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with ruptured and unruptured GIAs at three medical centers from October 2008 to April 2016. Clinical follow-up and digital subtraction angiography were conducted at six months post-treatment. Chi-square analysis was used to determine differences in outcomes between anterior and posterior circulation aneurysms and if a pipeline embolization device (PED) provided favorable outcomes in unruptured GIAs. Results A total of 45 consecutive patients (mean/median age = 57/59; range: 16-82 years) were included. The mean/median aneurysm size was 29.9/28.3 mm (range: 25-50 mm). Eight (18%) patients presented with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and 37 (82%) with unruptured GIAs. Twenty-eight (62%) were treated with a PED: 11 (24.4%) with one PED, 1 (2.2%) with PED + coils, 11 (24.4%) with more than one PED, and 5 (13.5%) with multiple PED + coils. The overall mortality rate was 3/45 (6.7%). No deaths were procedure-related. Five (11.1%) patients experienced ischemic stroke but only 2 had a 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of ≥3. Of 33 patients available for six-month angiography, Raymond scale (RS) scores were 1, 2, and 3 for 23/45 (70%), 7/45 (20.9%), and 3/45 (9.1%), respectively. Chi-square test demonstrated that overall, anterior circulation GIAs had better clinical (mRS score) and radiographic (RS score) outcomes than posterior GIAs. PED alone provided similar clinical mRS outcomes but had a higher rate of complete occlusion at six months compared with PED + coils and coils alone in unruptured GIAs (p < 0.05). Conclusions Endovascular embolization using PED or PED + coils appears to be a moderately safe and effective treatment option for patients with GIAs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.