Andereggen Lukas, Bosshart Salome L, Marbacher Serge, Grüter Basil E, Berberat Jatta, Schubert Gerrit A, Anon Javier, Diepers Michael, Steiger Hans-Jakob, Remonda Luca, Gruber Philipp
Department of Neurosurgery, Kantonsspital Aarau, 5001 Aarau, Switzerland.
Faculty of Medicine, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
J Clin Med. 2024 Sep 3;13(17):5223. doi: 10.3390/jcm13175223.
The endovascular approach has emerged as standard therapy for many intracranial aneurysms (IAs) to prevent hemorrhage, yet its long-term durability varies considerably. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of an initially deliberate endovascular approach regarding IA hemorrhage rates over a long-term follow-up period. This retrospective single-center study included all consecutive patients with endovascularly treated IAs who presented between January 2008 and December 2020 with a follow-up of at least 12 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with long-term IA hemorrhage rates and reperfusion. The secondary endpoint was treatment-related morbidity and mortality. Independent risk factors for IA reperfusion over the long term were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. Endovascular treatment was the therapy of choice for 333 patients with IAs, among whom 188 (57%) experienced rupture upon presentation. Complete coiling (Raymond I) was noted in 162 (49%) of the patients, with primary supportive devices being used in 51 (15%) patients. After a median (±SD) follow-up time of 34 ± 41 months (range 12-265 months), IA reperfusion was noted in 158 (47%), necessitating retreatment in 105 (32%) of the patients. Over the long term, hemorrhage was noted in four (1%) patients. Multivariate analysis revealed aneurysmal multilobarity (HR 1.8, 95%CI 1.2-2.7; = 0.004) and a patient age of ≥50 years (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.5, = 0.01) as independent predictors of reperfusion over time. Intervention-related morbidity was noted in 16 (4.8%) patients, namely, thrombosis formation and contrast extravasation in 8 (2.4%) patients each, while no intervention-induced mortality was observed. In the long term, the hemorrhage rate in patients with IA with an initially more conservative endovascular approach is low. Therefore, a deliberate endovascular treatment approach might be justified.
血管内介入治疗已成为许多颅内动脉瘤(IA)预防出血的标准治疗方法,但其长期疗效差异很大。本研究的目的是评估在长期随访期间,最初采用谨慎的血管内介入治疗方法对IA出血率的安全性和有效性。这项回顾性单中心研究纳入了2008年1月至2020年12月期间所有接受血管内治疗的IA连续患者,随访时间至少为12个月。主要终点是长期IA出血率和再灌注患者的比例。次要终点是治疗相关的发病率和死亡率。使用多因素逻辑回归分析IA长期再灌注的独立危险因素。血管内治疗是333例IA患者的首选治疗方法,其中188例(57%)在就诊时出现破裂。162例(49%)患者实现完全栓塞(Raymond I级),51例(15%)患者使用了初级辅助装置。中位(±标准差)随访时间为34±41个月(范围12 - 265个月),158例(47%)出现IA再灌注,其中105例(32%)患者需要再次治疗。长期来看,4例(1%)患者出现出血。多因素分析显示,动脉瘤多叶性(HR 1.8,95%CI 1.2 - 2.7;P = 0.004)和患者年龄≥50岁(HR 1.7,95%CI 1.1 - 2.5,P = 0.01)是长期再灌注的独立预测因素。16例(4.8%)患者出现干预相关的并发症,即各有8例(2.4%)患者出现血栓形成和造影剂外渗,未观察到干预导致的死亡。长期来看,最初采用更保守血管内介入治疗方法的IA患者出血率较低。因此,谨慎的血管内治疗方法可能是合理的。