| Literature DB >> 30459506 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endovascular management for cerebral saccular aneurysm has evolved in the last decade with evolution in both equipment and material. Coiling is still the mainstay of cerebral aneurysm endovascular management. In Egypt, practice outcome needs evaluation especially at low-volume centers.Entities:
Keywords: Cerebral aneurysm coiling; Outcome; Subarachnoid hemorrhage
Year: 2018 PMID: 30459506 PMCID: PMC6223742 DOI: 10.1186/s41983-018-0040-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Egypt J Neurol Psychiatr Neurosurg ISSN: 1110-1083
Fig. 1A2 aneurysm before (a) and after (b) coiling showing complete obliteration (class I according to modified Raymond–Roy Classification). An associated vasospasm is noticed (before intra-arterial nimodipine injection)
Patients characteristics and initial clinical evaluation
| Patients characteristics | No. | % |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 15 | 48.4 |
| Female | 16 | 51.6 |
| Age per years [range (mean ± SD)] | 18–71 [45.7 ± 13] | |
| Family history of subarachnoid hemorrhage | 3 | 9.7 |
| Smoking | 12 | 38.7 |
| Hypertension | 13 | 41.9 |
| Diabetes mellitus type II | 4 | 12.9 |
| Ischemic heart disease | 8 | 25.8 |
| Myocardial infarction | 1 | 3.2 |
| Chronic liver disease | 2 | 6.5 |
| Patients with bleeding aneurysm | 28 | 90.3 |
| Patients with aneurysm causing mass effect | 2 | 6.5 |
| Patients with asymptomatic aneurysm | 1 | 3.2 |
| Hunt and Hess scale | ||
| Grades 1–2 | 24 | 45.2 |
| Grades 3–4 | 17 | 54.8 |
| Cranial nerve palsy | 4 | 12.9 |
| Modified Rankin Scale | ||
| Scores 0–2 | 10 | 32.2 |
| Scores 3–5 | 21 | 67.8 |
| Fisher grading | ||
| Grades 1–2 | 22 | 71 |
| Grades 3–4 | 9 | 29 |
| Vasospasm-related infarction | 5 | 16.1 |
| Hydrocephalus necessitating shunt | 5 | 16.1 |
Angiographic assessment
| No. ( | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Site | ||
| A Comm | 12 | 34.3 |
| A1–A2 | 3 | 8.6 |
| P Comm | 7 | 20.0 |
| MCA | 4 | 11.4 |
| Ophthalmic | 3 | 8.6 |
| ICA bifurcation | 2 | 5.7 |
| Pericallosal | 1 | 2.9 |
| Cavernous | 1 | 2.9 |
| Basilar apex | 1 | 2.9 |
| Proximal PICA | 1 | 2.9 |
| Size | ||
| < 5 mm | 17 | 48.6 |
| > 5 and < 10 | 17 | 48.6 |
| > 10 | 1 | 2.9 |
| Neck type | ||
| Narrow | 23 | 65.7 |
| Wide | 12 | 34.3 |
| Branch arising from the aneurysm | 5 | 14.3 |
| Vasospasm | 13 | 37.1 |
A Comm anterior communicating artery, A1 A1 segment of anterior cerebral artery, P Comm posterior communicating artery, MCA middle cerebral artery, ICA internal carotid artery, PICA posterior inferior cerebellar artery
Fig. 2Carotid terminus aneurysm before (a) and after coiling (b) and (c) showing residual neck (class II) according to modified Raymond–Roy Classification. The aneurysmal neck was left intentionally for preservation of small branch that was seen arising from it (arrows)
Fig. 3Carotid cavernous aneurysm before (a) and after (b) coiling. Residual aneurysm with contrast within coil interstices is noticed (class IIIa according to modified Raymond–Roy Classification)
Procedural outcome
| No. | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Treated aneurysms | 34 | 97.1 |
| Aneurysm not fit for endovascular treatment | 1 | 2.9 |
| MRRC (immediate angiographic result) | ||
| I (complete obliteration) | 29 | 82.9 |
| II (residual neck) | 4 | 11.4 |
| IIIa (residual aneurysm with contrast within coil interstices) | 1 | 2.9 |
| IIIb (residual aneurysm with contrast along aneurysm wall) | 0 | 0.0 |
| mRS at discharge | ||
| 0 | 15 | 48.4 |
| 1 | 6 | 19.4 |
| 2 | 2 | 6.5 |
| 3 | 2 | 6.5 |
| 4 | 3 | 9.7 |
| 5 | 1 | 3.2 |
| 6 | 2 (died) | 6.5 |
| Procedural-related mortality | 0 | 0.0 |
| Non-procedural related mortality | 2 | 5.7 |
| Hydrocephalus necessitating shunt | 2 | 5.7 |
MRRC Modified Raymond–Roy Classification
Long-term follow-up
| No. | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Duration of follow-up (m) | ||
| Range [mean ± SD] | 6–60 [33.03 ± 15.96] months | |
| Delayed ischemia | 0/29 | 0.0 |
| MRRC | ||
| I | 23/29 | 79.3 |
| II | 3/29 | 10.3 |
| IIIa and IIIb | 3/29 | 10.3 |
| Rebleeding | 0/29 | 0.0 |
| Retreatment (coiling) | 2/29 | 6.9 |
MRRC Modified Raymond–Roy Classification
Comparison between patients with poor outcome and patients with good outcome according to variables that showed significant differences
| Patients characteristics | Poor outcome patients ( | Good outcome patients ( | × 2/ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | % | No. | % | |||
| Myocardial infarction | 1 | 16.7 | 0 | 0.0 | 4.306 | 0.038 |
| Hunt and Hess scale | ||||||
| 1–2 | 0 | 0.0 | 14 | 56.0 | 6.075 | 0.023 |
| 3–4 | 6 | 100.0 | 11 | 44.0 | ||
| Admission mRS | ||||||
| 0–2 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 40.0 | 3.963 | 0.044 |
| 3–5 | 6 | 100 | 15 | 60 | ||
| Fisher grading | ||||||
| 1–2 | 1 | 16.7 | 21 | 84.0 | 7.630 | 0.006 |
| 3–4 | 5 | 83.3 | 4 | 16.0 | ||
| Vasospasm-related infarction | 4 | 66.7 | 1 | 4.0 | 14.047 | < 0.001 |
| Vasospasm | 5 | 83.3 | 8 | 32.0 | 5.236 | 0.022 |
| Hydrocephalus necessitating shunt | 2 | 33.3 | 0 | 0.0 | 8.908 | 0.003 |
mRS Modified Rankin Scale
Logistic regression analysis for variables which are possibly affecting the outcome
| Factors |
| Sig. | Exp(B) | C.I. 95% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||
| MI* | 0.187 | 0.243 | 0.928 | 0.696 | 1.253 |
| Hunt and Hess scale | 0.570 | 0.018 | 1.100 | 0.492 | 0.886 |
| Admission mRS | 0.182 | 0.039 | 1.166 | 0.700 | 1.260 |
| Fisher grading | 0.166 | 0.020 | 0.946 | 0.710 | 1.277 |
| Vasospasm-related infarction | 0.206 | 0.017 | 0.912 | 0.684 | 1.231 |
| Vasospasm | 0.309 | 0.959 | 0.656 | 0.825 | 1.485 |
| Hydrocephalus necessitating shunt | 0.748 | 0.047 | 0.833 | 0.875 | 1.574 |
MI myocardial infarction, mRS Modified Rankin Scale