Neurorestoration Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Diego, California, USA.
World Neurosurg. 2020 Jun;138:e251-e259. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.02.088. Epub 2020 Feb 24.
Intracranial bypass to treat ruptured aneurysms has been well described in the literature but is largely deferred in patients with higher Hunt and Hess (H & H) grades due to complexity and length of surgery, risk of inducing vasospasm, and poor prognosis. However, there is a paucity of data and no direct comparison with more traditional open surgical techniques. This study investigated outcomes in patients with H & H grade 3-5 aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) unfavorable for stand-alone endovascular treatment managed with bypass compared with direct surgical clipping.
A prospective database of patients treated for aSAH with H & H grade 3-5 between 2013 and 2018 was retrospectively analyzed. Complications and functional status at discharge and latest follow-up were compared between patients who underwent bypass surgery versus direct clipping.
Twenty-three patients underwent revascularization, and 60 underwent clipping alone. There were no significant differences in all-cause 30-day mortality (15% vs. 16%; P = 0.97) or Glasgow Outcome Scale and modified Rankin Scale at discharge or median 8-month follow-up (P > 0.67). There was a higher overall stroke rate with revascularization (P = 0.004), specifically endovascular treatment-related stroke (P = 0.049), with no difference in surgical (P = 0.47) or vasospasm-related stroke (P = 0.53). There were no differences in overall complications, medical complications, seizures, reruptures, hydrocephalus, or perioperative death (P > 0.05).
Bypass is a viable option for patients presenting with higher H & H grade aSAH deemed unfavorable for stand-alone endovascular therapy. Despite obvious differences in aneurysm complexity and a higher risk of stroke, functional outcomes with revascularization can be comparable with clipping in this high-risk patient cohort.
颅内旁路治疗破裂的动脉瘤在文献中有很好的描述,但由于手术的复杂性和长度、诱发血管痉挛的风险以及预后不佳,在更高的 Hunt 和 Hess (H & H) 分级的患者中,这种治疗方法往往被推迟。然而,目前数据匮乏,且与更传统的开放式手术技术相比,没有直接的比较。本研究调查了对于不适合单独血管内治疗的 H & H 分级 3-5 级蛛网膜下腔出血 (aSAH) 患者,与直接手术夹闭相比,接受旁路手术治疗的患者的结局。
回顾性分析了 2013 年至 2018 年期间接受 H & H 分级 3-5 级 aSAH 治疗的患者的前瞻性数据库。比较了接受旁路手术与直接夹闭的患者在出院时和最新随访时的并发症和功能状态。
23 例患者接受了血运重建,60 例患者单独接受了夹闭。30 天全因死亡率(15% vs. 16%;P = 0.97)或出院时和中位 8 个月随访时的格拉斯哥预后量表和改良 Rankin 量表评分(P > 0.67)均无显著差异。血运重建的总体卒中率较高(P = 0.004),特别是血管内治疗相关卒中(P = 0.049),而手术相关卒中(P = 0.47)或血管痉挛相关卒中(P = 0.53)无差异。总的并发症、医疗并发症、癫痫发作、再破裂、脑积水或围手术期死亡发生率无差异(P > 0.05)。
对于被认为不适合单独血管内治疗的较高 H & H 分级 aSAH 患者,旁路是一种可行的选择。尽管动脉瘤复杂性明显不同,且卒中风险较高,但在这一高危患者群体中,血管重建的功能结局与夹闭相当。