Observational studyScientific reports2025
The rupture of smaller counterpart aneurysms in patients with multiple intracranial aneurysms.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In case of multiple (unruptured) intracranial aneurysms (M[U]IA), deciding which intracranial aneurysms (IA) should be treated and which at first can be challenging. The most accepted risk factor in making these decisions is IA size. However, a smaller intracranial counterpart aneurysm (SICA) and not the largest IA in patients with MIA might cause subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). By falsely assessing a SICA as benign and withholding treatment, these patients are put at risk for SICA rupture before treatment. Therefore, there is a paramount need to improve the identification of more rupture-prone SICA, especially regarding the improved accessibility to intracranial imaging leading to increasing incidences of patients with (M)IA. From our institutional observational cohort, containing data of all patients with IA treated between 01/2003 and 06/2016, 285 patients with MIA who were hospitalized for acute aSAH were identified. In 261 patients, the largest of their IA ruptured, and in 24 patients, a SICA ruptured (defined by a size difference of ≥ 2 mm). Different demographic, clinical, laboratory, and radiographic characteristics of patients and IA were collected. Univariate and multivariate binary regression analyses (UVA, MVA) were performed to identify putative risk factors for the rupture of SICA. In the final MVA, the total number of IA (p = 0.043; aOR = 1.61) and the intake of multiple antihypertensive drugs (p < 0.001; aOR = 3.96) showed a statistically significant association with the ruptured status of SICA. In contrast, smoking (p = 0.825), radiographic risk factors (i.e., daughter sack p = 0.736, IA irregularities p = 0.286, location p = 0.665), arterial hypertension (p = 0.869), and blood examinations did not show a statistically significant regression with the rupture of SICA. This study found statistically significant putative risk factors to identify IA rupture factors that might overweight IA size in certain situations. Thereby, a subgroup of MIA patients could be identified who require treatment with ≥ 2 antihypertensive agents or have a high number of IA that might benefit from a simultaneous treatment of more than one UIA in a single session. Further studies are needed to verify these results and improve the identification of more rupture-prone SICA in MUIA patients.
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.