Observational studyActa neurochirurgica2024
Treatment of unruptured intracranial vertebral artery dissection aneurysms with Flow Diverter compared with conventional stent-assisted coiling-a single-center study.
Observational study in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06134557 (Analysis of the Therapeutic Effect of Blood Flow Reconstruction in the Treatment of Intracranial Dissection Aneurysm of Vertebral Artery), 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.
Analysis of the Therapeutic Effect of Blood Flow Reconstruction in the Treatment of Intracranial Dissection Aneurysm of Vertebral Artery
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of flow diversion versus stent-assisted coiling in posterior circulation aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Stent-Assisted Coil Embolization Versus Flow Diversion in Intracranial Vertebral Artery Dissecting Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Neuroradiology · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimFlow diverters (FDs) are being increasingly used off-label for treatment of intracranial vertebral artery dissection aneurysms (IVADAs). However, the safety and efficacy of FDs for unruptured IVADAs remain unclear. This study was performed to investigate whether FDs-alone are safer and more effective than conventional stent-asisted coiling.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 152 patients who underwent endovascular stenting from December 2011 to December 2022. The baseline data, aneurysm characteristics, surgical details, perioperative complications, follow-up angiography, and clinical outcomes were collected and compared between patients who underwent stenting with FD-alone versus conventional stent-asisted coiling. Propensity score matching was also conducted.
resultsAll 152 patients underwent successful endovascular therapy. Forty patients were treated with FDs-alone, and 112 were treated with conventional stent-asisted coiling (including 62 with double stents). The complete occlusion rate was 93.75% in the FD group and 93.61% in the conventional stent group (p = 0.979). The complication rate was 5.00% in the FD group and 8.93% in the conventional stent group (p = 0.653). The in-stent restenosis rate was 3.13% in the FD group and 5.32% in the conventional stent group (p = 0.615). The procedure duration was significantly shorter in the FD than conventional stent group (p = 0.034). After propensity score matching, 37 patients with FDs were successfully matched, and the procedure duration was still significantly shorter in the FD group (p = 0.042).
conclusionFD placement is a safe and effective treatment for IVADAs. It is also a simpler procedure with a shorter operation time than conventional stent placement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2300074171 ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT06134557.
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.