S Li1, C Zeng1, W Tao1, Z Huang1, L Yan1, X Tian1, F Chen2. 1. From the Department of Neurosurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. 2. From the Department of Neurosurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China xyswcfh@csu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the flow diverter has advantages in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms, pooled studies that directly compare it with conventional endovascular treatments are rare. PURPOSE: Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of flow-diverter and conventional endovascular treatments in intracranial aneurysms. DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database. STUDY SELECTION: We included only studies that directly compared the angiographic and clinical outcomes of flow-diverter and conventional endovascular treatments. DATA ANALYSIS: Random effects or fixed effects meta-analysis was used to pool the cumulative rate of short- and long-term angiographic and clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eighteen studies with 1001 patients with flow diverters and 1133 patients with conventional endovascular treatments were included; 1015 and 1201 aneurysm procedures were performed, respectively. The flow-diverter group had aneurysms of a larger size (standard mean difference, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.03-0.41; P = .026). There was a higher risk of complications in the flow-diverter group compared with the conventional endovascular group (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.01-1.96; P = .045) during procedures. The follow-up angiographic results of flow-diverter treatment indicated a higher rate of complete occlusion (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.70-3.83; P < .001) and lower rates of recurrence (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.46; P < .001) and retreatment (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21-0.47; P < .001). LIMITATIONS: Limitations include a retrospective, observational design in some studies, high heterogeneity, and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the conventional endovascular treatments, the placement of a flow diverter may lead to more procedure-related complications, but there is no difference in safety, and it is more effective in the long term.
BACKGROUND: Although the flow diverter has advantages in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms, pooled studies that directly compare it with conventional endovascular treatments are rare. PURPOSE: Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of flow-diverter and conventional endovascular treatments in intracranial aneurysms. DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database. STUDY SELECTION: We included only studies that directly compared the angiographic and clinical outcomes of flow-diverter and conventional endovascular treatments. DATA ANALYSIS: Random effects or fixed effects meta-analysis was used to pool the cumulative rate of short- and long-term angiographic and clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eighteen studies with 1001 patients with flow diverters and 1133 patients with conventional endovascular treatments were included; 1015 and 1201 aneurysm procedures were performed, respectively. The flow-diverter group had aneurysms of a larger size (standard mean difference, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.03-0.41; P = .026). There was a higher risk of complications in the flow-diverter group compared with the conventional endovascular group (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.01-1.96; P = .045) during procedures. The follow-up angiographic results of flow-diverter treatment indicated a higher rate of complete occlusion (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.70-3.83; P < .001) and lower rates of recurrence (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.46; P < .001) and retreatment (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21-0.47; P < .001). LIMITATIONS: Limitations include a retrospective, observational design in some studies, high heterogeneity, and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the conventional endovascular treatments, the placement of a flow diverter may lead to more procedure-related complications, but there is no difference in safety, and it is more effective in the long term.
Authors: J-M Liu; Y Zhou; Y Li; T Li; B Leng; P Zhang; G Liang; Q Huang; P-F Yang; H Shi; J Zhang; J Wan; W He; C Liang; G Zhu; Y Xu; B Hong; X Yang; W Bai; Y Tian; H Zhang; Z Li; Q Li; R Zhao; Y Fang; K Zhao Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Peter S Amenta; Richard T Dalyai; David Kung; Amy Toporowski; Sid Chandela; David Hasan; L Fernando Gonzalez; Aaron S Dumont; Stavropoula I Tjoumakaris; Robert H Rosenwasser; Mitchell G Maltenfort; Pascal M Jabbour Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Nohra Chalouhi; Robert M Starke; Steven Yang; Cory D Bovenzi; Stavropoula Tjoumakaris; David Hasan; L Fernando Gonzalez; Robert Rosenwasser; Pascal Jabbour Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Phillip A Bonney; Michelle Connor; Tatsuhiro Fujii; Parampreet Singh; Matthew J Koch; Christopher J Stapleton; William J Mack; Brian P Walcott Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 4.654