Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38873695›Full record

SynthesisInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2026

Comparative meta-analysis of endovascular strategies for intracranial dissecting aneurysms: Flow diverters versus stents with or without coiling.

Melika Amoukhteh, Amir Hassankhani, Payam Jannatdoust, Parya Valizadeh, Sherief Ghozy, Cem Bilgin, David F Kallmes

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Melika AmoukhtehDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Amir HassankhaniDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0529-5341
Payam JannatdoustDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Parya ValizadehDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Sherief GhozyDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5629-3023
Cem BilginDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6243-9495
David F KallmesDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8495-0040

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundIntracranial dissecting aneurysms present a challenging subset linked to considerable morbidity and mortality, necessitating effective therapeutic strategies to prevent complications. Traditional treatments face technical limitations, while emerging endovascular modalities like stent-assisted coiling, multiple stenting, and flow-diverting devices (FDDs) offer promise in reducing periprocedural risks and enhancing patient outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy outcomes of endovascular treatment for intracranial dissecting aneurysms using FDDs versus stents (with or without coiling).MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following established guidelines. The search included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to July 30, 2023. Eligible studies reporting outcomes of interest in both FDD and stent-treated groups were included, and the data was extracted and analyzed using STATA software.ResultsSix studies were analyzed, involving 131 patients in the FDD group and 199 patients in the stent group. The pooled rates for favorable functional outcomes (86.8% vs. 86%), mortality (3.9% vs. 6%), adequate occlusion (79.7% vs. 86.3%), aneurysm recurrence (1.3% vs. 13.3%), in-stent stenosis/thrombosis (7% vs. 6.9%), ischemic events/infarctions (6.7% vs. 7.8%), retreatment (7% vs. 8.6%), and technical success (100% vs. 98.7%) were comparable in individuals treated with FDDs and stents (p > 0.05 in all cases). Additionally, complete occlusion rates were not significantly different between FDD (62.7%) and stent-treated patients (75.2%) (p = 0.06). However, after excluding one study in a leave-one-out analysis of the random effects meta-analysis, a significant difference in the pooled rates of this outcome was observed between the FDD (59.2%) and stent (75.2%) groups (p = 0.034).ConclusionFDDs present a promising approach for the treatment of intracranial dissecting aneurysms, yielding outcomes that are roughly comparable to stent-based methods. However, the absence of randomized trials and data limitations highlight the need for further research to enhance treatment strategies.

Indexed as

Aortic DissectionEndovascular ProceduresIntracranial AneurysmStentsHumansTreatment OutcomeaneurysmdissectionefficacyFlow diverterssafetystents

Identifiers

PMID38873695
PMCPMC11571147

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.