BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Multiple technologies have developed the endovascular approach to MCA aneurysms. We assess the safety and the efficacy of a systematic endovascular approach in nonselected patients with MCA aneurysms and determine predictors of treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data collected between January 2007 and January 2012 in a prospective clinical registry. All patients with MCA aneurysms treated by means of the endovascular approach were included. A multivariate analysis was conducted to identify predictors of complications, recanalization, and outcome. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients with 131 MCA aneurysms were included. Seventy-nine patients (65.8%) were treated electively and 41 (34.2%) in the setting of subarachnoid hemorrhage. Thirty-three of 131 aneurysms (25.2%) were treated with simple coiling, 79 aneurysms (60.3%) with balloon-assisted coiling, and 19 aneurysms (14.5%) with stent-assisted coiling. Complications occurred in 13.7% of patients. Stent-assisted coiling was significantly associated with more complications (P = .002; OR: 4.86; 95% CI, 1.60-14.72). At 1 month after treatment, both the permanent morbidity (mRS ≤2) and mortality rates were 3.3%, without any significant difference according to the endovascular techniques. Mean angiographic follow-up was 16.3 months. The rate of recanalization was 15.6% without a statistical difference, according to the technique. Larger aneurysms were a predictor of recanalization (P = .016; OR: 1.183; 95% CI, 1.02-1.36). Retreatment was performed in 10 of 131 aneurysms (7.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Even though stent-assisted coiling significantly increases the risk of procedural complications, endovascular treatment of MCA aneurysms is safe, effective, and provides durable aneurysm closure in nonselected patients.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Multiple technologies have developed the endovascular approach to MCA aneurysms. We assess the safety and the efficacy of a systematic endovascular approach in nonselected patients with MCA aneurysms and determine predictors of treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data collected between January 2007 and January 2012 in a prospective clinical registry. All patients with MCA aneurysms treated by means of the endovascular approach were included. A multivariate analysis was conducted to identify predictors of complications, recanalization, and outcome. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients with 131 MCA aneurysms were included. Seventy-nine patients (65.8%) were treated electively and 41 (34.2%) in the setting of subarachnoid hemorrhage. Thirty-three of 131 aneurysms (25.2%) were treated with simple coiling, 79 aneurysms (60.3%) with balloon-assisted coiling, and 19 aneurysms (14.5%) with stent-assisted coiling. Complications occurred in 13.7% of patients. Stent-assisted coiling was significantly associated with more complications (P = .002; OR: 4.86; 95% CI, 1.60-14.72). At 1 month after treatment, both the permanent morbidity (mRS ≤2) and mortality rates were 3.3%, without any significant difference according to the endovascular techniques. Mean angiographic follow-up was 16.3 months. The rate of recanalization was 15.6% without a statistical difference, according to the technique. Larger aneurysms were a predictor of recanalization (P = .016; OR: 1.183; 95% CI, 1.02-1.36). Retreatment was performed in 10 of 131 aneurysms (7.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Even though stent-assisted coiling significantly increases the risk of procedural complications, endovascular treatment of MCA aneurysms is safe, effective, and provides durable aneurysm closure in nonselected patients.
Authors: Andrew Molyneux; Richard Kerr; Irene Stratton; Peter Sandercock; Mike Clarke; Julia Shrimpton; Rury Holman Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-10-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Waleed Brinjikji; Giuseppe Lanzino; Harry J Cloft; Alejandro Rabinstein; David F Kallmes Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Sandra P Ferns; Marieke E S Sprengers; Willem Jan van Rooij; Wim H van Zwam; Gérard A P de Kort; Birgitta K Velthuis; Joanna D Schaafsma; René van den Berg; Menno Sluzewski; Patrick A Brouwer; Gabriël J E Rinkel; Charles B L M Majoie Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Ana Rodríguez-Hernández; Michael E Sughrue; Sina Akhavan; Julian Habdank-Kolaczkowski; Michael T Lawton Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Nohra Chalouhi; Pascal Jabbour; Saurabh Singhal; Ross Drueding; Robert M Starke; Richard T Dalyai; Stavropoula Tjoumakaris; L Fernando Gonzalez; Aaron S Dumont; Robert Rosenwasser; Ciro G Randazzo Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 7.914
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: D N Gherasim; B Gory; R Sivan-Hoffmann; L Pierot; H Raoult; J-Y Gauvrit; H Desal; X Barreau; D Herbreteau; R Riva; F Ambesi Impiombato; X Armoiry; F Turjman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: B Gory; M Aguilar-Pérez; E Pomero; F Turjman; W Weber; S Fischer; H Henkes; A Biondi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Lei Huang; Wenjie Cao; Liang Ge; Gang Lu; Jun Wan; Lei Zhang; Weijin Gu; Xiaolong Zhang; Daoying Geng Journal: Int J Clin Exp Med Date: 2015-05-15
Authors: B Gory; A M Spiotta; S Mangiafico; A Consoli; A Biondi; E Pomero; M Killer-Oberpfalzer; W Weber; R Riva; P E Labeyrie; F Turjman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 3.825