ArticleWorld neurosurgery2024
Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Outcomes in an Endovascular Right of First Refusal Neurosurgical Environment.
Article in World neurosurgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandomized controlled trials demonstrate that endovascular techniques yield improved outcomes compared with microsurgical approaches. However, not all patients are suitable candidates for endovascular management. This study aimed to determine if healthy patients managed microsurgically could achieve functional outcomes comparable to patients managed endovascularly.
methodsPatients treated for ruptured aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage at 2 level 1 stroke centers from January 2012 through December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. All cases were evaluated in an endovascular right of first refusal neurosurgical environment. We collected relevant clinical and follow-up data and created a generalized linear model to identify differences between patients treated endovascularly versus microsurgically. A propensity score model accounting for these differences was used to predict patient outcomes. Functional outcomes were independently assessed using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) with good functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale score <3.
resultsThe study included 588 patients (211 microsurgical, 377 endovascular); median age was 58 years (interquartile range: 40-86 years); in-hospital mortality was 13%. Age, aneurysm size, and aneurysm location significantly predicted treatment modality (all P < 0.05). After greedy-type matching (210 microsurgical, 210 endovascular), patients managed microsurgically were less likely to be discharged home (odds ratio = 0.6, 95% confidence interval 0.4-0.9, P = 0.01). Functional differences disappeared over time; patients in the 2 treatment arms had similar functional outcomes at 3 months (odds ratio = 1.1, 95% confidence interval 0.7-1.8, P = 0.66) and 1 year after subarachnoid hemorrhage (odds ratio = 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.8-2.1, P = 0.38).
conclusionsIn an endovascular right of first refusal neurosurgical environment, practitioners can treat patients who are not good endovascular candidates microsurgically and achieve functional outcomes comparable to patients managed endovascularly.
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.