BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The factors that led us to do the research for this paper was a desire to see if elderly patients did as well as non-elderly patients during endovascular intracranial aneurysm treatment. By doing this research, we could better stratify the most appropriate treatment for each patient with an aneurysm. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the incidence of procedural complications was greater in the elderly, defined as patients older than 65 years of age, compared with nonelderly patients undergoing elective endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed in patients undergoing elective endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms between 2000 and 2010 at 1 institution. "Minor complications" were defined as those resulting in minimal or no loss of function that resolved before dismissal; "major complications" were complications that resulted in loss of function or complications that required a subsequent invasive therapy. Major complications were further stratified into those with and without neurologic disability, defined as an mRS score of >3. T tests and χ(2) analyses were used to compare groups. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five patients underwent 394 endovascular procedures treating 75 aneurysm recurrences and 319 untreated aneurysms. One hundred eight (30%) were elderly. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications in the elderly compared with the nonelderly (33% versus 26%, respectively; P = .18). Major complications were significantly more prevalent in the elderly than in the nonelderly (17% versus 7.4%, respectively, P = .004). Major complications with neurologic disability were also significantly more prevalent in the elderly compared with the nonelderly (8.2% versus 1.8%, respectively, P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Major functional complications were markedly more common in the elderly compared with the nonelderly.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The factors that led us to do the research for this paper was a desire to see if elderly patients did as well as non-elderly patients during endovascular intracranial aneurysm treatment. By doing this research, we could better stratify the most appropriate treatment for each patient with an aneurysm. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the incidence of procedural complications was greater in the elderly, defined as patients older than 65 years of age, compared with nonelderly patients undergoing elective endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed in patients undergoing elective endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms between 2000 and 2010 at 1 institution. "Minor complications" were defined as those resulting in minimal or no loss of function that resolved before dismissal; "major complications" were complications that resulted in loss of function or complications that required a subsequent invasive therapy. Major complications were further stratified into those with and without neurologic disability, defined as an mRS score of >3. T tests and χ(2) analyses were used to compare groups. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five patients underwent 394 endovascular procedures treating 75 aneurysm recurrences and 319 untreated aneurysms. One hundred eight (30%) were elderly. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications in the elderly compared with the nonelderly (33% versus 26%, respectively; P = .18). Major complications were significantly more prevalent in the elderly than in the nonelderly (17% versus 7.4%, respectively, P = .004). Major complications with neurologic disability were also significantly more prevalent in the elderly compared with the nonelderly (8.2% versus 1.8%, respectively, P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Major functional complications were markedly more common in the elderly compared with the nonelderly.
Authors: Stephanie C Lin; Susan M Trocciola; Jason Rhee; Rajeev Dayal; Rabih Chaer; Nicholas J Morrissey; Leila Mureebe; James F McKinsey; K Craig Kent; Peter L Faries Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Waleed Brinjikji; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Giuseppe Lanzino; David F Kallmes; Harry J Cloft Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Fred G Barker; Sepideh Amin-Hanjani; William E Butler; Brian L Hoh; James D Rabinov; Johnny C Pryor; Christopher S Ogilvy; Bob S Carter Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.654
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: Andrew J Molyneux; Richard S C Kerr; Ly-Mee Yu; Mike Clarke; Mary Sneade; Julia A Yarnold; Peter Sandercock Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Sep 3-9 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Hormuzdiyar Dasenbrock; William B Gormley; Yoojin Lee; Vincent Mor; Susan L Mitchell; Corey R Fehnel Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: A Alwakeal; N A Shlobin; P Golnari; W Metcalf-Doetsch; P Nazari; S A Ansari; M C Hurley; D R Cantrell; A Shaibani; B S Jahromi; M B Potts Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 4.966