BACKGROUND: Stent-assisted coiling (SAC) and balloon-assisted coiling (BAC) are 2 well-established techniques for the treatment of complex and wide-necked intracranial aneurysms. Most clinicians are reluctant to perform SAC in the setting of subarachnoid hemorrhage because of the need for dual antiplatelet therapy. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of SAC and BAC in acutely ruptured complex and wide-necked aneurysms. METHODS: Forty-four patients underwent SAC and 40 underwent BAC. Patients treated with SAC received antiplatelet medications. Perioperative adverse events and outcomes at follow-up (mean, 7.4 months) were retrospectively studied. RESULTS: The 2 groups were statistically comparable with respect to all baseline characteristics except for older age in SAC patients (65.6 vs 56.5 years; P = .009). A higher proportion of SAC patients also had poor Hunt and Hess grades (III-V; 70.5% vs 55%; P = .l4). Hemorrhagic, thromboembolic, and overall procedural complications occurred in 6.8%, 11.4%, and 18.2% of the SAC group vs 2.5%, 7.5%, and 10% of the BAC group, respectively (P = .5, P = .6, P = .3, respectively). Favorable outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) at follow-up were seen in 61.0% of the SAC group vs 77% of the BAC group (P = .1). In multivariable analysis, after controlling for differences in baseline characteristics, the type of treatment was not a predictor of procedural complications or clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: In this study, procedural complications and clinical outcomes did not differ significantly between SAC and BAC in patients with acutely ruptured aneurysms. SAC may be an acceptable alternative to BAC for complex aneurysms in the acute phase of subarachnoid hemorrhage.
BACKGROUND: Stent-assisted coiling (SAC) and balloon-assisted coiling (BAC) are 2 well-established techniques for the treatment of complex and wide-necked intracranial aneurysms. Most clinicians are reluctant to perform SAC in the setting of subarachnoid hemorrhage because of the need for dual antiplatelet therapy. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of SAC and BAC in acutely ruptured complex and wide-necked aneurysms. METHODS: Forty-four patients underwent SAC and 40 underwent BAC. Patients treated with SAC received antiplatelet medications. Perioperative adverse events and outcomes at follow-up (mean, 7.4 months) were retrospectively studied. RESULTS: The 2 groups were statistically comparable with respect to all baseline characteristics except for older age in SAC patients (65.6 vs 56.5 years; P = .009). A higher proportion of SAC patients also had poor Hunt and Hess grades (III-V; 70.5% vs 55%; P = .l4). Hemorrhagic, thromboembolic, and overall procedural complications occurred in 6.8%, 11.4%, and 18.2% of the SAC group vs 2.5%, 7.5%, and 10% of the BAC group, respectively (P = .5, P = .6, P = .3, respectively). Favorable outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) at follow-up were seen in 61.0% of the SAC group vs 77% of the BAC group (P = .1). In multivariable analysis, after controlling for differences in baseline characteristics, the type of treatment was not a predictor of procedural complications or clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: In this study, procedural complications and clinical outcomes did not differ significantly between SAC and BAC in patients with acutely ruptured aneurysms. SAC may be an acceptable alternative to BAC for complex aneurysms in the acute phase of subarachnoid hemorrhage.