Yong Xie1, Huan Tian2, Bin Xiang1, Jian Liu1, Hua Xiang1. 1. Department of Interventional Radiology and Vascular Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China. 2. Department of Radiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The clinical outcome and angiographic outcome data of Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device for the treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms (IAs) are limited. We conducted a meta-analysis of the latest literature on the WEB device in the treatment of ruptured IAs. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of 4 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Embase) was conducted for studies published from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted variables (aneurysm and patient characteristics) using a prespecified data-collection sheet. Outcomes studied included initial and latest follow-up angiographic outcomes, technical success rate, perioperative mortality, retreated rate, perioperative re-bleeding, complication, intraoperative rupture, favorable neurologic outcome at discharge. We used random-effects model to pool the data. RESULTS: We finally presented the results of 7 articles including 276 patients with 283 aneurysms. Initial complete and adequate occlusion rate were 38% (95% CI, 25%-50%) and 98% (95% CI, 95%-100%), respectively. Latest follow-up complete and adequate occlusion rate were 61% (95% CI, 46%-75%) and 91% (95% CI, 84%-98%), respectively.Technical success rate was 99% (95% CI, 98%-100%). Perioperative mortality rates and perioperative re-bleeding rate were 9% (95% CI, 3%-15%) and 1% (95% CI, 0%-2%), respectively. Retreated rate was 6% (95% CI, 3%-10%). Overall and WEB treatment-related thromboembolic complication was 10% (95% CI, 6%-13%) and 7% (95% CI, 2%-12%), respectively. Intraoperative rupture rate was 3% (95% CI, 0%-6%). CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment of ruptured IAs with the WEB device has a good safety profile and an acceptable aneurysm occlusion rate.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The clinical outcome and angiographic outcome data of Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device for the treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms (IAs) are limited. We conducted a meta-analysis of the latest literature on the WEB device in the treatment of ruptured IAs. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of 4 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Embase) was conducted for studies published from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted variables (aneurysm and patient characteristics) using a prespecified data-collection sheet. Outcomes studied included initial and latest follow-up angiographic outcomes, technical success rate, perioperative mortality, retreated rate, perioperative re-bleeding, complication, intraoperative rupture, favorable neurologic outcome at discharge. We used random-effects model to pool the data. RESULTS: We finally presented the results of 7 articles including 276 patients with 283 aneurysms. Initial complete and adequate occlusion rate were 38% (95% CI, 25%-50%) and 98% (95% CI, 95%-100%), respectively. Latest follow-up complete and adequate occlusion rate were 61% (95% CI, 46%-75%) and 91% (95% CI, 84%-98%), respectively.Technical success rate was 99% (95% CI, 98%-100%). Perioperative mortality rates and perioperative re-bleeding rate were 9% (95% CI, 3%-15%) and 1% (95% CI, 0%-2%), respectively. Retreated rate was 6% (95% CI, 3%-10%). Overall and WEB treatment-related thromboembolic complication was 10% (95% CI, 6%-13%) and 7% (95% CI, 2%-12%), respectively. Intraoperative rupture rate was 3% (95% CI, 0%-6%). CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment of ruptured IAs with the WEB device has a good safety profile and an acceptable aneurysm occlusion rate.
Authors: C Papagiannaki; L Spelle; A-C Januel; A Benaissa; J-Y Gauvrit; V Costalat; H Desal; F Turjman; S Velasco; X Barreau; P Courtheoux; C Cognard; D Herbreteau; J Moret; L Pierot Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Sbt van Rooij; M E Sprengers; J P Peluso; J Daams; D Verbaan; W J van Rooij; C B Majoie Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 1.610
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: X Armoiry; F Turjman; D J Hartmann; R Sivan-Hoffmann; R Riva; P E Labeyrie; G Aulagner; B Gory Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 3.825
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