Trial reportNeurosurgical review2024
Comparison of LVIS and Enterprise stent-assisted coiling embolization for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a propensity score-matched cohort study.
Trial report in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05738083 (Multi-Center Registry Cohort Study on Prognostic Factors and Prediction Model Construction in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Multi-Center Registry Cohort Study on Prognostic Factors and Prediction Model Construction in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- LVIS versus enterprise stents for stent-assisted coiling of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neuroradiology · 2025Pooled it
- Case Report: Application of the LVIS stent as a bridging device for salvage treatment of malapposed lattice flow diverter in a giant posterior circulation aneurysm: technical note and clinical efficacy.Frontiers in surgery · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The role of a low-profile visualized intraluminal support stent (LVIS) and Enterprise in the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms is well established. Although previous studies have investigated one single type of stent for the treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms (RIA), the safety and efficacy between the two types of stents has not been fully explored. Herein we conducted a study to compare the outcomes of the two stents for treatment of RIA. This is a prospective registry database of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) patients admitted to a single institution between 2018 and 2021. We collected patient baseline information, secondary complications, follow-up angiographic data, long-term prognostic outcomes, and conducted propensity score matching (PSM) analysis with 1:1 ratio and a multivariable logistic regression to compare the outcomes of the two types of stents. A total of 231 patients with RIAs were included in this study, with 108 treated using the LVIS device and 123 treated using the Enterprise device. Before PSM analysis, only the incidence of poor prognosis after 12 months was higher in the Enterprise group comparing to the LVIS group (20% vs. 10%, P = 0.049). After PSM analysis, there was a higher occurrence of delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) in the Enterprise group compared to the LVIS group (odds ratio [OR] 3.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.20-13.01], P = 0.024). However, no significant difference in prognosis was observed after PSM adjustment. Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed that patients with female (P = 0.019), hypertension (P = 0.048), and anterior circulation aneurysms (P = 0.019) receiving the Enterprise device had a higher risk of DCI. The overall efficacy of LVIS and Enterprise in the treatment of RIA is comparable, while the incidence of DCI in the LVIS group is lower than that in the Enterprise group after PSM analysis. Registration number: NCT05738083 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ).
Indexed as
Identifiers
39242449What 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.