Belkhir J Raouf, Pease Matthew, McCarthy David J, Legarretta Andrew, Mittal Aditya M, Crago Elizabeth A, Gross Bradley A, Lang Michael J
Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
World Neurosurg. 2024 Jan;181:e524-e532. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.10.091. Epub 2023 Oct 23.
Randomized controlled trials demonstrate that endovascular techniques yield improved outcomes compared with microsurgical approaches. However, not all patients are suitable candidates for endovascular management. This study aimed to determine if healthy patients managed microsurgically could achieve functional outcomes comparable to patients managed endovascularly.
Patients treated for ruptured aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage at 2 level 1 stroke centers from January 2012 through December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. All cases were evaluated in an endovascular right of first refusal neurosurgical environment. We collected relevant clinical and follow-up data and created a generalized linear model to identify differences between patients treated endovascularly versus microsurgically. A propensity score model accounting for these differences was used to predict patient outcomes. Functional outcomes were independently assessed using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) with good functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale score <3.
The study included 588 patients (211 microsurgical, 377 endovascular); median age was 58 years (interquartile range: 40-86 years); in-hospital mortality was 13%. Age, aneurysm size, and aneurysm location significantly predicted treatment modality (all P < 0.05). After greedy-type matching (210 microsurgical, 210 endovascular), patients managed microsurgically were less likely to be discharged home (odds ratio = 0.6, 95% confidence interval 0.4-0.9, P = 0.01). Functional differences disappeared over time; patients in the 2 treatment arms had similar functional outcomes at 3 months (odds ratio = 1.1, 95% confidence interval 0.7-1.8, P = 0.66) and 1 year after subarachnoid hemorrhage (odds ratio = 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.8-2.1, P = 0.38).
In an endovascular right of first refusal neurosurgical environment, practitioners can treat patients who are not good endovascular candidates microsurgically and achieve functional outcomes comparable to patients managed endovascularly.
随机对照试验表明,与显微外科手术方法相比,血管内技术能产生更好的治疗效果。然而,并非所有患者都适合进行血管内治疗。本研究旨在确定接受显微外科手术治疗的健康患者是否能取得与接受血管内治疗的患者相当的功能预后。
对2012年1月至2020年12月在2个一级卒中中心接受破裂性动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血治疗的患者进行回顾性研究。所有病例均在血管内优先拒绝的神经外科环境中进行评估。我们收集了相关的临床和随访数据,并创建了一个广义线性模型来识别血管内治疗与显微外科治疗患者之间的差异。使用考虑这些差异的倾向评分模型来预测患者的预后。使用改良Rankin量表(mRS)独立评估功能预后,良好的功能预后定义为改良Rankin量表评分<3。
该研究纳入了588例患者(211例显微外科手术,377例血管内治疗);中位年龄为58岁(四分位间距:40 - 86岁);住院死亡率为13%。年龄、动脉瘤大小和动脉瘤位置显著预测治疗方式(所有P < 0.05)。经过贪婪型匹配(210例显微外科手术,210例血管内治疗)后,接受显微外科手术治疗的患者出院回家的可能性较小(比值比 = 0.6,95%置信区间0.4 - 0.9,P = 0.01)。功能差异随时间消失;两个治疗组的患者在蛛网膜下腔出血后3个月(比值比 = 1.1,95%置信区间0.7 - 1.8,P = 0.66)和1年时具有相似的功能预后(比值比 = 1.3,95%置信区间0.8 - 2.1,P = 0.38)。
在血管内优先拒绝的神经外科环境中,从业者可以对不适合血管内治疗的患者进行显微外科手术治疗,并取得与接受血管内治疗的患者相当的功能预后。