M A Essibayi1, G Lanzino2,3, W Brinjikji2,3. 1. From the Department of Neurosurgery (M.A.E., G.L., W.B.) m.amir.essibayi@gmail.com. 2. From the Department of Neurosurgery (M.A.E., G.L., W.B.). 3. Radiology (G.L., W.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Woven EndoBridge device has been increasingly used to treat wide-neck aneurysms, particularly ruptured ones. PURPOSE: Our aim was to investigate the safety and efficacy of the Woven EndoBridge device in the treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms. DATA SOURCES: All studies evaluating the outcomes of Woven EndoBridge device use in the treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms from inception through 2020 were searched on Ovid Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Web of Science Core Collection. STUDY SELECTION: Eighteen studies encompassing 487 patients with 496 ruptured aneurysms treated with the Woven EndoBridge device were included. DATA ANALYSIS: We studied rates of rerupture and retreatment, angiographic outcomes at the last follow-up point, complications, and mortality rates. Data were collected on anticoagulation and antiplatelet use. Meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: The rate of late rebleeding was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.1%-2.1%). The treatment-related perioperative complication rate and the overall clinical complication rate were 13.2% (95% CI, 9.2%-17.2%) and 3.2% (95% CI, 1.6%-4.7%), respectively. Thirteen hemorrhagic (2%; 95% CI, 0.8%-3.3%) and 41 thromboembolic (6.8%; 95% CI, 4.6%-9%) complications occurred. Favorable clinical outcomes were achieved in 85% of patients. Procedure-related mortality and overall mortality rates were 2.1% (95% CI, 0.8%-3.3%) and 11.5% (95% CI, 7%-16%), respectively. At last follow-up, an adequate occlusion rate was 87.3% (95% CI, 82.1%-92.4%) and the retreatment rate was 5.1% (95% CI, 3%-7.3%). LIMITATIONS: Our meta-analysis is limited by selection bias and high heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated the safety and efficacy of the Woven EndoBridge device in the management of ruptured aneurysms, but further studies are needed.
BACKGROUND: The Woven EndoBridge device has been increasingly used to treat wide-neck aneurysms, particularly ruptured ones. PURPOSE: Our aim was to investigate the safety and efficacy of the Woven EndoBridge device in the treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms. DATA SOURCES: All studies evaluating the outcomes of Woven EndoBridge device use in the treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms from inception through 2020 were searched on Ovid Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Web of Science Core Collection. STUDY SELECTION: Eighteen studies encompassing 487 patients with 496 ruptured aneurysms treated with the Woven EndoBridge device were included. DATA ANALYSIS: We studied rates of rerupture and retreatment, angiographic outcomes at the last follow-up point, complications, and mortality rates. Data were collected on anticoagulation and antiplatelet use. Meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: The rate of late rebleeding was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.1%-2.1%). The treatment-related perioperative complication rate and the overall clinical complication rate were 13.2% (95% CI, 9.2%-17.2%) and 3.2% (95% CI, 1.6%-4.7%), respectively. Thirteen hemorrhagic (2%; 95% CI, 0.8%-3.3%) and 41 thromboembolic (6.8%; 95% CI, 4.6%-9%) complications occurred. Favorable clinical outcomes were achieved in 85% of patients. Procedure-related mortality and overall mortality rates were 2.1% (95% CI, 0.8%-3.3%) and 11.5% (95% CI, 7%-16%), respectively. At last follow-up, an adequate occlusion rate was 87.3% (95% CI, 82.1%-92.4%) and the retreatment rate was 5.1% (95% CI, 3%-7.3%). LIMITATIONS: Our meta-analysis is limited by selection bias and high heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated the safety and efficacy of the Woven EndoBridge device in the management of ruptured aneurysms, but further studies are needed.
Authors: Patrick P Youssef; David Dornbos Iii; Jeremy Peterson; Ahmad Sweid; Amanda Zakeri; Shahid M Nimjee; Pascal Jabbour; Adam S Arthur Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: S B T van Rooij; W J van Rooij; J P Peluso; M Sluzewski; R S Bechan; H G Kortman; G N Beute; B van der Pol; C B Majoie Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 3.825
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: Adam S Arthur; Andy Molyneux; Alexander L Coon; Isil Saatci; Istvan Szikora; Feyyaz Baltacioglu; Ali Sultan; Daniel Hoit; Josser E Delgado Almandoz; Lucas Elijovich; Saru Cekirge; James V Byrne; David Fiorella Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Visish M Srinivasan; Adam A Dmytriw; Robert W Regenhardt; Juan Vicenty-Padilla; Naif M Alotaibi; Elad Levy; Muhammad Waqas; Jacob Cherian; Jeremiah N Johnson; Pascal Jabbour; Ahmad Sweid; Bradley Gross; Robert M Starke; Ajit Puri; Francesco Massari; Christoph J Griessenauer; Joshua S Catapano; Caleb Rutledge; Omar Tanweer; Parham Yashar; Gustavo M Cortez; Mohammad A Aziz-Sultan; Aman B Patel; Andrew F Ducruet; Felipe C Albuquerque; Ricardo A Hanel; Michael T Lawton; Peter Kan Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jay Gajera; Julian Maingard; Michelle Foo; Yifan Ren; Anthony Lamanna; Daniel Nour; Jonathan Hall; Dylan Kurda; David Tan; Shivendra Lalloo; Ramon Martin Francisco Bañez; Jeremy Russell; Lee-Anne Slater; Ronil Vikesh Chandra; Winston Chong; Ashu Jhamb; Duncan Mark Brooks; Hamed Asadi Journal: Neurointervention Date: 2022-02-08