BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stent-assisted coiling and balloon-assisted coiling are 2 well-established techniques for treatment of wide-neck intracranial aneurysms. A direct comparative analysis of angiographic outcomes with the 2 techniques has not been available. We compare the angiographic outcomes of wide-neck aneurysms treated with stent-assisted coiling versus balloon-assisted coiling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 101 consecutive patients treated at our institution, 69 with stent-assisted coiling and 32 with balloon-assisted coiling. Two multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors of aneurysm obliteration and predictors of progressive aneurysm thrombosis at follow-up. RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable with respect to all baseline characteristics with the exception of a higher proportion of ruptured aneurysms in the balloon-assisted coiling group (65.6%) than in the stent-assisted coiling group (11.5%, P < .001). Procedural complications did not differ between the stent-assisted coiling group (6%) and the balloon-assisted coiling group (9%, P = .5). The rates of complete aneurysm occlusion (Raymond score 1) at the most recent follow-up were significantly higher for the stent-assisted coiling group (75.4%) compared with the balloon-assisted coiling group (50%, P = .01). Progressive occlusion of incompletely coiled aneurysms was noted in 76.6% of aneurysms in the stent-assisted coiling group versus 42.8% in the balloon-assisted coiling group (P = .02). Retreatment rates were significantly lower with stent-assisted coiling (4.3%) versus balloon-assisted coiling (15.6%, P = .05). In multivariate analysis, stented aneurysms independently predicted both complete aneurysm obliteration and progression of occlusion. CONCLUSIONS: Stent-assisted coiling may yield lower rates of retreatment and higher rates of aneurysm obliteration and progression of occlusion at follow-up than balloon-assisted coiling with a similar morbidity rate.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stent-assisted coiling and balloon-assisted coiling are 2 well-established techniques for treatment of wide-neck intracranial aneurysms. A direct comparative analysis of angiographic outcomes with the 2 techniques has not been available. We compare the angiographic outcomes of wide-neck aneurysms treated with stent-assisted coiling versus balloon-assisted coiling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 101 consecutive patients treated at our institution, 69 with stent-assisted coiling and 32 with balloon-assisted coiling. Two multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors of aneurysm obliteration and predictors of progressive aneurysm thrombosis at follow-up. RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable with respect to all baseline characteristics with the exception of a higher proportion of ruptured aneurysms in the balloon-assisted coiling group (65.6%) than in the stent-assisted coiling group (11.5%, P < .001). Procedural complications did not differ between the stent-assisted coiling group (6%) and the balloon-assisted coiling group (9%, P = .5). The rates of complete aneurysm occlusion (Raymond score 1) at the most recent follow-up were significantly higher for the stent-assisted coiling group (75.4%) compared with the balloon-assisted coiling group (50%, P = .01). Progressive occlusion of incompletely coiled aneurysms was noted in 76.6% of aneurysms in the stent-assisted coiling group versus 42.8% in the balloon-assisted coiling group (P = .02). Retreatment rates were significantly lower with stent-assisted coiling (4.3%) versus balloon-assisted coiling (15.6%, P = .05). In multivariate analysis, stented aneurysms independently predicted both complete aneurysm obliteration and progression of occlusion. CONCLUSIONS: Stent-assisted coiling may yield lower rates of retreatment and higher rates of aneurysm obliteration and progression of occlusion at follow-up than balloon-assisted coiling with a similar morbidity rate.
Authors: Breigh Nonte Roszelle; M Haithem Babiker; Walter Hafner; L Fernando Gonzalez; Felipe C Albuquerque; David H Frakes Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 5.836
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: F Di Maria; S Pistocchi; F Clarençon; B Bartolini; R Blanc; A Biondi; H Redjem; J Chiras; N Sourour; M Piotin Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M Asif Taqi; Eytan Raz; Anastasia Vechera; Maksim Shapiro; Rishi Gupta; Joseph Haynes; Philipp Taussky; Ramesh Grandhi; Howard A Riina; Peter Kim Nelson; Erez Nossek Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: R Sivan-Hoffmann; B Gory; R Riva; P-E Labeyrie; F Signorelli; I Eldesouky; U Gonike-Sadeh; X Armoiry; F Turjman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: I Akmangit; K Aydin; S Sencer; O M Topcuoglu; E D Topcuoglu; E Daglioglu; M Barburoglu; A Arat Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-09-18 Impact factor: 3.825