J Raymond1, D Iancu2,3, W Boisseau2, J D B Diestro2, R Klink2, M Chagnon4, J Zehr4, B Drake5, H Lesiuk5, A Weill2, D Roy2, M W Bojanowski6, C Chaalala6, J L Rempel7, C O'Kelly8, M M Chow8, S Bracard9, T E Darsaut8. 1. From the Department of Radiology (J.R., D.I., W.B., J.D.B.D., R.K., A.W., D.R.), Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Quebec, Canada jean.raymond@umontreal.ca. 2. From the Department of Radiology (J.R., D.I., W.B., J.D.B.D., R.K., A.W., D.R.), Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Departments of Radiology (D.I.). 4. Department of Mathematics and Statistics (M.C., J.Z.), Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada. 5. Surgery (B.D., H.L.), Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Neurosurgery (M.W.B., C.C.), Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Notre-Dame Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 7. Departments of Radiology (J.L.R.). 8. Surgery (C.O., M.M.C., T.E.D.), Division of Neurosurgery, University of Alberta Hospital, Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 9. Neuroradiology (S.B.), CHRU de Nancy, Nancy, Lorraine, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Flow diversion is a recent endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms. We compared the safety and efficacy of flow diversion with the alternative standard management options. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A parallel group, prerandomized, controlled, open-label pragmatic trial was conducted in 3 Canadian centers. The trial included all patients considered for flow diversion. A Web-based platform 1:1 randomly allocated patients to flow diversion or 1 of 4 alternative standard management options (coiling with/without stent placement, parent vessel occlusion, surgical clipping, or observation) as prespecified by clinical judgment. Patients ineligible for alternative standard management options were treated with flow diversion in a registry. The primary safety outcome was death or dependency (mRS > 2) at 3 months. The composite primary efficacy outcome included the core lab-determined angiographic presence of a residual aneurysm, aneurysm rupture, progressive mass effect during follow-up, or death or dependency (mRS > 2) at 3-12 months. RESULTS: Between May 2011 and November 2020, three hundred twenty-three patients were recruited: Two hundred seventy-eight patients (86%) had treatment randomly allocated (139 to flow diversion and 139 to alternative standard management options), and 45 (14%) received flow diversion in the registry. Patients in the randomized trial frequently had unruptured (83%), large (52% ≥10 mm) carotid (64%) aneurysms. Death or dependency at 3 months occurred in 16/138 patients who underwent flow diversion and 12/137 patients receiving alternative standard management options (relative risk, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.65-2.69; P = .439). A poor primary efficacy outcome was found in 30.9% (43/139) with flow diversion and 45.6% (62/136) of patients receiving alternative standard management options, with an absolute risk difference of 14.7% (95% CI, 3.3%-26.0%; relative risk, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.92; P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with mostly unruptured, large, anterior circulation (carotid) aneurysms, flow diversion was more effective than the alternative standard management option in terms of angiographic outcome.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Flow diversion is a recent endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms. We compared the safety and efficacy of flow diversion with the alternative standard management options. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A parallel group, prerandomized, controlled, open-label pragmatic trial was conducted in 3 Canadian centers. The trial included all patients considered for flow diversion. A Web-based platform 1:1 randomly allocated patients to flow diversion or 1 of 4 alternative standard management options (coiling with/without stent placement, parent vessel occlusion, surgical clipping, or observation) as prespecified by clinical judgment. Patients ineligible for alternative standard management options were treated with flow diversion in a registry. The primary safety outcome was death or dependency (mRS > 2) at 3 months. The composite primary efficacy outcome included the core lab-determined angiographic presence of a residual aneurysm, aneurysm rupture, progressive mass effect during follow-up, or death or dependency (mRS > 2) at 3-12 months. RESULTS: Between May 2011 and November 2020, three hundred twenty-three patients were recruited: Two hundred seventy-eight patients (86%) had treatment randomly allocated (139 to flow diversion and 139 to alternative standard management options), and 45 (14%) received flow diversion in the registry. Patients in the randomized trial frequently had unruptured (83%), large (52% ≥10 mm) carotid (64%) aneurysms. Death or dependency at 3 months occurred in 16/138 patients who underwent flow diversion and 12/137 patients receiving alternative standard management options (relative risk, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.65-2.69; P = .439). A poor primary efficacy outcome was found in 30.9% (43/139) with flow diversion and 45.6% (62/136) of patients receiving alternative standard management options, with an absolute risk difference of 14.7% (95% CI, 3.3%-26.0%; relative risk, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.92; P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with mostly unruptured, large, anterior circulation (carotid) aneurysms, flow diversion was more effective than the alternative standard management option in terms of angiographic outcome.
Authors: Jean Raymond; Anne-Christine Januel; Daniela Iancu; Daniel Roy; Alain Weill; Andrew Carlson; Tim E Darsaut Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: A Benomar; B Farzin; G Gevry; W Boisseau; D Roy; A Weill; D Iancu; F Guilbert; L Létourneau-Guillon; G Jacquin; C Chaalala; M W Bojanowski; M Labidi; R Fahed; D Volders; T N Nguyen; J-C Gentric; E Magro; G Boulouis; G Forestier; J-F Hak; J S Ghostine; Z Kaderali; J J Shankar; M Kotowski; T E Darsaut; J Raymond Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 4.966