Christoph Kabbasch1, Lukas Goertz2, Eberhard Siebert3, Moriz Herzberg4, Jan Borggrefe1, Anastasios Mpotsaris5, Franziska Dorn4, Thomas Liebig4. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 2. Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany; Center for Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. Electronic address: lukas.goertz@uk-koeln.de. 3. Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Berlin (Charité), Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany. 5. Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany; Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy between Woven EndoBridge (WEB) embolization and conventional coiling for treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms using a propensity score-matched analysis. METHODS: Consecutive patients treated with the WEB at 3 German neurovascular centers and with coiling at a single center during 2011 and 2018 were analyzed. Procedure-related complications, clinical outcome, and angiographic results were retrospectively evaluated and compared. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients treated by coiling and 56 patients treated with the WEB were identified. Significant differences between the 2 groups were observed in patient age (P = 0.048), aneurysm location (P < 0.01), aneurysm size (P = 0.02), and neck width (P < 0.01). The overall complication rate was comparable between the coil group (9.0%) and the WEB group (8.9%, P = 1.0). Favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale ≤2) was obtained in 98.5% after coiling and 98.2% after WEB treatment. At last available angiographic follow-up, WEB yielded a higher complete aneurysm occlusion rate (87.2%) than coiling (60.8%, P < 0.01). Nine patients in the coil cohort (17.6%) and 2 patients in the WEB cohort (4.3%) underwent retreatment (P = 0.05). After 1:1 propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in complication (P = 1.0) and morbidity rates (P = 1.0), whereas there was a trend toward a higher complete aneurysm occlusion rate after WEB treatment (P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of unruptured aneurysms with the WEB provides potentially higher aneurysm occlusion rates than conventional coiling while having similar complication rates and no additional morbidity.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy between Woven EndoBridge (WEB) embolization and conventional coiling for treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms using a propensity score-matched analysis. METHODS: Consecutive patients treated with the WEB at 3 German neurovascular centers and with coiling at a single center during 2011 and 2018 were analyzed. Procedure-related complications, clinical outcome, and angiographic results were retrospectively evaluated and compared. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients treated by coiling and 56 patients treated with the WEB were identified. Significant differences between the 2 groups were observed in patient age (P = 0.048), aneurysm location (P < 0.01), aneurysm size (P = 0.02), and neck width (P < 0.01). The overall complication rate was comparable between the coil group (9.0%) and the WEB group (8.9%, P = 1.0). Favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale ≤2) was obtained in 98.5% after coiling and 98.2% after WEB treatment. At last available angiographic follow-up, WEB yielded a higher complete aneurysm occlusion rate (87.2%) than coiling (60.8%, P < 0.01). Nine patients in the coil cohort (17.6%) and 2 patients in the WEB cohort (4.3%) underwent retreatment (P = 0.05). After 1:1 propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in complication (P = 1.0) and morbidity rates (P = 1.0), whereas there was a trend toward a higher complete aneurysm occlusion rate after WEB treatment (P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of unruptured aneurysms with the WEB provides potentially higher aneurysm occlusion rates than conventional coiling while having similar complication rates and no additional morbidity.
Authors: Pablo Harker; Robert W Regenhardt; Naif M Alotaibi; Justin Vranic; Faith C Robertson; Adam A Dmytriw; Jerry C Ku; Matthew Koch; Christopher J Stapleton; Thabele M Leslie-Mazwi; Nelson Serna; Boris Pabon; Juan A Mejia; Aman B Patel Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: L Goertz; T Liebig; E Siebert; M Herzberg; L Pennig; M Schlamann; J Borggrefe; B Krischek; F Dorn; C Kabbasch Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: L Goertz; T Liebig; E Siebert; Y Özpeynirci; L Pennig; E Celik; M Schlamann; F Dorn; C Kabbasch Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Timothy G White; Kevin Shah; Justin Turpin; Thomas Link; Amir R Dehdashti; Jeffrey M Katz; Henry H Woo Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-11-29 Impact factor: 1.764