Department of Graduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Department of Graduate School, Nan Kai University, Tianjin, China.
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020 Jun;29(6):104808. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.104808. Epub 2020 Apr 15.
Coiling and flow diversion are established endovascular techniques for treatment of cavernous carotid aneurysms (CCAs). We performed a systematic review of published series on endovascular treatment of CCAs in order to assess the efficacy and safety between coiling and flow diversion.
We conducted a computerized search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science electronic databases for reports on endovascular treatment of CCAs from 1990 to 2019. Comparisons were made in complete occlusion rate, improvement of symptoms rate and intraoperative complication rate between coiling and flow diversion.
Fourteen studies with 736 patients were included in this systematic review. Five hundred ninety-4 patients underwent coiling, 142 patients underwent flow diversion. The complete occlusion rate in the coiling group was significantly lower than that in the flow division group (odds ratio .37, 95%CI .16-.83, P < .00001), a forest plot did not reveal any significant differences in the improvement of symptoms rate or intraoperative complication rate following coiling and flow diversion. Complete occlusion rate was significantly lower in the coiling group (53%, 95%CI .40-.67) compared with the flow diversion group (74%, 95%CI .55-.94). Improvement of symptoms was significantly lower in the coiling group (54%, 95%CI .46-.63) compared with the flow diversion group (92%, 95%CI .85-.99). Coiling group had lower intraoperative complication rate (9%, 95%CI .06-.12) compared with flow division group (36%, 95%CI .25-.47).
Compared with coiling, the use of flow diversion for the treatment of CCAs may increase complete occlusion rate, and improvement of symptoms rate, but it also raised intraoperative complication rate. Due to the lack of high quality control research, further randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our conclusions.
弹簧圈栓塞和血流导向装置是治疗海绵窦颈动脉瘤(CCAs)的成熟血管内技术。我们对已发表的关于 CCAs 血管内治疗的系列研究进行了系统回顾,以评估弹簧圈栓塞和血流导向装置之间的疗效和安全性。
我们对 1990 年至 2019 年发表的关于 CCAs 血管内治疗的 PubMed、MEDLINE 和 Web of Science 电子数据库进行了计算机检索。比较了弹簧圈栓塞和血流导向装置之间的完全闭塞率、症状改善率和术中并发症发生率。
本系统回顾共纳入 14 项研究,共 736 例患者。594 例行弹簧圈栓塞,142 例行血流导向装置治疗。弹簧圈组的完全闭塞率明显低于血流导向装置组(比值比.37,95%CI.16-.83,P <.00001),森林图显示弹簧圈栓塞和血流导向装置治疗后症状改善率或术中并发症发生率无显著差异。弹簧圈组的完全闭塞率(53%,95%CI.40-.67)明显低于血流导向装置组(74%,95%CI.55-.94)。弹簧圈组症状改善率(54%,95%CI.46-.63)明显低于血流导向装置组(92%,95%CI.85-.99)。弹簧圈组术中并发症发生率(9%,95%CI.06-.12)明显低于血流导向装置组(36%,95%CI.25-.47)。
与弹簧圈栓塞相比,血流导向装置治疗 CCAs 可能会增加完全闭塞率和症状改善率,但也会增加术中并发症发生率。由于缺乏高质量的对照研究,需要进一步的随机对照试验来验证我们的结论。