Turfe Zaahir A, Brinjikji Waleed, Murad Mohammad H, Lanzino Giuseppe, Cloft Harry J, Kallmes David F
College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
J Neurointerv Surg. 2015 Apr;7(4):250-5. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011102. Epub 2014 Mar 21.
Endosaccular coil embolization and parent artery occlusion (PAO) are established endovascular techniques for treatment of cavernous carotid aneurysms. We performed a systematic review of published series on endovascular treatment of cavernous carotid aneurysms to determine outcomes and complications associated with endovascular coiling and PAO of cavernous carotid artery aneurysms.
In September 2013, we conducted a computerized search of MEDLINE and EMBASE for reports on endovascular treatment of intracranial cavernous carotid aneurysms from January 1990 to August 2013. Comparisons were made in periprocedural complications and outcomes between coiling and PAO patients who did not receive bypass. Event rates were pooled across studies using random effects meta-analysis.
20 studies with 509 patients and 515 aneurysms were included in this systematic review. Aneurysm occlusion rates at >3 months after operation were significantly higher in the PAO without bypass group (93.0%, 95% CI 86.0 to 97.0) compared with the coiling group (67.0%, 95% CI 55.0 to 77.0) (p<0.01). Retreatment rates were significantly lower in the PAO without bypass group (6.0%, 95% CI 2.0 to 12.0) compared with the coiling group (18.0%, 95% CI 12.0 to 26.0) (p=0.01). Coiling patients had a similar morbidity rate (3.0%, 95% CI 2.0 to 6.0) compared with PAO without bypass patients (7.0%, 95% CI 3.0 to 12.0) (p=0.13). Coiling patients had a similar mortality rate (0.0%, 95% CI 0.0 to 6.0) compared with PAO without bypass patients (4.0%, 95% CI 1.0 to 9.0) (p=0.68).
Evidence from non-comparative studies suggests that traditional endovascular options are highly effective in treating cavernous sinus aneurysms. PAO is associated with a higher rate of complete occlusion. Periprocedural morbidity and mortality rates are not negligible, especially in patients receiving PAO.
囊内弹簧圈栓塞术和载瘤动脉闭塞术(PAO)是治疗海绵窦段颈内动脉瘤的成熟血管内治疗技术。我们对已发表的关于海绵窦段颈内动脉瘤血管内治疗的系列研究进行了系统评价,以确定与海绵窦段颈内动脉瘤血管内弹簧圈栓塞术和PAO相关的疗效及并发症。
2013年9月,我们对MEDLINE和EMBASE进行了计算机检索,以查找1990年1月至2013年8月期间关于颅内海绵窦段颈内动脉瘤血管内治疗的报告。对未接受搭桥手术的弹簧圈栓塞术患者和PAO患者的围手术期并发症及疗效进行比较。使用随机效应荟萃分析对各研究中的事件发生率进行汇总。
本系统评价纳入了20项研究,共509例患者和515个动脉瘤。与弹簧圈栓塞术组(67.0%,95%可信区间55.0至77.0)相比,未接受搭桥手术的PAO组术后3个月以上的动脉瘤闭塞率显著更高(93.0%,95%可信区间86.0至97.0)(p<0.01)。与弹簧圈栓塞术组(18.0%,95%可信区间12.0至26.0)相比,未接受搭桥手术的PAO组的再次治疗率显著更低(6.0%,95%可信区间2.0至12.0)(p=0.01)。弹簧圈栓塞术患者的发病率(3.0%,95%可信区间2.0至6.0)与未接受搭桥手术的PAO患者(7.0%,95%可信区间3.0至12.0)相似(p=0.13)。弹簧圈栓塞术患者的死亡率(0.0%,95%可信区间0.0至6.0)与未接受搭桥手术的PAO患者(4.0%,95%可信区间1.0至9.0)相似(p=0.68)。
非对照研究的证据表明,传统的血管内治疗方法在治疗海绵窦段动脉瘤方面非常有效。PAO与更高的完全闭塞率相关。围手术期发病率和死亡率不可忽视,尤其是在接受PAO的患者中。