OBJECTIVE: The introduction of detachable coils revolutionised the management of patients with intracranial aneurysms and is now considered a first-line treatment in our institution. The purpose of this study was to review 10 years of experience with this method. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 711 patients undergoing endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysm between 1996 and 2005 with regard to technical feasibility, procedural complications, rebleeding, anatomical outcome, need for retreatment and overall clinical outcome. RESULTS: Endovascular treatment failed in 25 aneurysms from a total of 717 (4%). Aneurysm rupture complicated 37 procedures (4.7%) leaving 10 patients permanently disabled or dead (1.3%). Thromboembolic events complicated 35 procedures (4.5%) leaving 8 patients permanently disabled or dead (1%). One other patient died because of fatal parent vessel rupture. Further 6 procedures were complicated by arterial dissection and 18 by coil loop protrusion, however all of these patients achieved independent recovery. Overall morbidity-mortality was 2.9%. Further subarachnoid hemorrhage occurred in 16 patients (2.3%), 12 of which died. Altogether, 121 aneurysms from 511 (24%) were recanalized on follow up angiography, 52 required retreatment (7.1%). At 6 months follow up, 580 patients (82%) were independent, while 130 patients (18%) were disabled or dead. CONCLUSION: Detachable coil embolisation of intracranial aneurysms is a very feasible treatment method associated with a small risk of permanent morbidity-mortality. Risk of further bleeding is small, but related with devastating outcome. Approximately 25% of aneurysms will recanalize and 7% will require retreatment. Despite these shortcomings, vast majority of patients will achieve independent recovery.
OBJECTIVE: The introduction of detachable coils revolutionised the management of patients with intracranial aneurysms and is now considered a first-line treatment in our institution. The purpose of this study was to review 10 years of experience with this method. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 711 patients undergoing endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysm between 1996 and 2005 with regard to technical feasibility, procedural complications, rebleeding, anatomical outcome, need for retreatment and overall clinical outcome. RESULTS: Endovascular treatment failed in 25 aneurysms from a total of 717 (4%). Aneurysm rupture complicated 37 procedures (4.7%) leaving 10 patients permanently disabled or dead (1.3%). Thromboembolic events complicated 35 procedures (4.5%) leaving 8 patients permanently disabled or dead (1%). One other patient died because of fatal parent vessel rupture. Further 6 procedures were complicated by arterial dissection and 18 by coil loop protrusion, however all of these patients achieved independent recovery. Overall morbidity-mortality was 2.9%. Further subarachnoid hemorrhage occurred in 16 patients (2.3%), 12 of which died. Altogether, 121 aneurysms from 511 (24%) were recanalized on follow up angiography, 52 required retreatment (7.1%). At 6 months follow up, 580 patients (82%) were independent, while 130 patients (18%) were disabled or dead. CONCLUSION: Detachable coil embolisation of intracranial aneurysms is a very feasible treatment method associated with a small risk of permanent morbidity-mortality. Risk of further bleeding is small, but related with devastating outcome. Approximately 25% of aneurysms will recanalize and 7% will require retreatment. Despite these shortcomings, vast majority of patients will achieve independent recovery.
Authors: Stephanie H Chen; Ramesh Grandhi; Christopher P Deibert; Tudor G Jovin; Paul A Gardner; Andrew F Ducruet Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: T J Kaufmann; J Huston; H J Cloft; J Mandrekar; L Gray; M A Bernstein; J L Atkinson; D F Kallmes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Consoli; L Renieri; R Mura; S Nappini; F Ricciardi; G Pecchioli; F Ammannati; S Mangiafico Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: C Sherif; A Gruber; E Schuster; E Lahnsteiner; D Gibson; H Milavec; B Feichter; M Wiesender; C Dorfer; M Krawagna; A Di Ieva; G Bavinszki; E Knosp Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-04-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Nicollas Nunes Rabelo; João Paulo Mota Telles; Leonardo Zumerkorn Pipek; Louise Makarem; Antonio Luis Boechat; Manoel Jacobsen Teixeira; Eberval Gadelha Figueiredo Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 3.830