BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The decision regarding whether or not to retreat a previously treated aneurysm not only directly impacts patient care but also serves as a primary outcome measure in numerous, leading randomized controlled trials of modified coils. Our aim was to determine the degree of interobserver variability regarding the need and type of treatment for recurrent aneurysms following coil embolization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven previously treated recurrent aneurysms were identified. Five independent readers rated each aneurysm on a 5-point scale: 1, definitely do not retreat; 2, probably do not retreat; 3, unsure; 4, probably retreat; and 5, definitely retreat. The readers noted, in grades 2-5, the type of retreatment preferred, including simple coiling, balloon- or stent-assist coiling, or surgical clipping. Intraobserver agreement κ was calculated. Retreatment recommendations were evaluated between observers by using a Wilcoxon signed rank comparison. Descriptive statistics were performed for categoric treatment-type comparisons. RESULTS: At least 2- or 3-point differences between 2 readers were present in 17 (63%) and 11 (41%) of 27 cases, respectively. The median κ was 0.27 (range, 0.04-0.43), which indicates fair agreement. Differences between readers varied, with readers 4 and 5 more often recommending retreatment compared with reviewers 1-3 (P < .05). Wide variation was noted in treatment approach, with recommendations for surgical clipping ranging from 2 (7%) to 18 (67%) of 27 cases between readers 1 and 5. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrates substantial variability among observers not only in whether to retreat a recurrent aneurysm but also how to treat it. These findings suggest that patient management varies widely across treating physicians and also calls into question the use of "retreatment" as an objective end point in clinical trials.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The decision regarding whether or not to retreat a previously treated aneurysm not only directly impacts patient care but also serves as a primary outcome measure in numerous, leading randomized controlled trials of modified coils. Our aim was to determine the degree of interobserver variability regarding the need and type of treatment for recurrent aneurysms following coil embolization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven previously treated recurrent aneurysms were identified. Five independent readers rated each aneurysm on a 5-point scale: 1, definitely do not retreat; 2, probably do not retreat; 3, unsure; 4, probably retreat; and 5, definitely retreat. The readers noted, in grades 2-5, the type of retreatment preferred, including simple coiling, balloon- or stent-assist coiling, or surgical clipping. Intraobserver agreement κ was calculated. Retreatment recommendations were evaluated between observers by using a Wilcoxon signed rank comparison. Descriptive statistics were performed for categoric treatment-type comparisons. RESULTS: At least 2- or 3-point differences between 2 readers were present in 17 (63%) and 11 (41%) of 27 cases, respectively. The median κ was 0.27 (range, 0.04-0.43), which indicates fair agreement. Differences between readers varied, with readers 4 and 5 more often recommending retreatment compared with reviewers 1-3 (P < .05). Wide variation was noted in treatment approach, with recommendations for surgical clipping ranging from 2 (7%) to 18 (67%) of 27 cases between readers 1 and 5. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrates substantial variability among observers not only in whether to retreat a recurrent aneurysm but also how to treat it. These findings suggest that patient management varies widely across treating physicians and also calls into question the use of "retreatment" as an objective end point in clinical trials.
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: Menno Sluzewski; Willem Jan van Rooij; Marian J Slob; Javier Oliván Bescós; Cornelis H Slump; Douwe Wijnalda Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-04-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jean Raymond; François Guilbert; Alain Weill; Stavros A Georganos; Louis Juravsky; Anick Lambert; Julie Lamoureux; Miguel Chagnon; Daniel Roy Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-05-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: S A Renowden; P Koumellis; V Benes; W Mukonoweshuro; A J Molyneux; N S McConachie Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-04-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Timothy J Kaufmann; John Huston; Jay N Mandrekar; Cathy D Schleck; Kent R Thielen; David F Kallmes Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M H Schönfeld; V Schlotfeldt; N D Forkert; E Goebell; M Groth; E Vettorazzi; Y D Cho; M H Han; H-S Kang; J Fiehler Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: J S McDonald; R E Carter; K F Layton; J Mocco; J B Madigan; R G Tawk; R A Hanel; S S Roy; H J Cloft; A M Klunder; S H Suh; D F Kallmes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Olli I Tähtinen; Hannu I Manninen; Ritva L Vanninen; Riitta Rautio; Arto Haapanen; Janne Seppänen; Tero Niskakangas; Jaakko Rinne; Leo Keski-Nisula Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 2.804