Suppr超能文献

血流导向装置与传统支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞治疗未破裂颅内椎动脉夹层动脉瘤的单中心研究

Treatment of unruptured intracranial vertebral artery dissection aneurysms with Flow Diverter compared with conventional stent-assisted coiling-a single-center study.

作者信息

Zhang Tongfu, Zhong Weiying, Zhou Donglin, Xu Yangyang, Li Maogui, Zhuang Jianfeng, Wang Donghai, Su Wandong, Wang Yunyan

机构信息

Cheeloo College of Medicine, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.

Yangxin County People's Hospital, Binzhou, Shandong, China.

出版信息

Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2024 Dec 18;166(1):506. doi: 10.1007/s00701-024-06398-z.

Abstract

AIM

Flow diverters (FDs) are being increasingly used off-label for treatment of intracranial vertebral artery dissection aneurysms (IVADAs). However, the safety and efficacy of FDs for unruptured IVADAs remain unclear. This study was performed to investigate whether FDs-alone are safer and more effective than conventional stent-asisted coiling.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 152 patients who underwent endovascular stenting from December 2011 to December 2022. The baseline data, aneurysm characteristics, surgical details, perioperative complications, follow-up angiography, and clinical outcomes were collected and compared between patients who underwent stenting with FD-alone versus conventional stent-asisted coiling. Propensity score matching was also conducted.

RESULTS

All 152 patients underwent successful endovascular therapy. Forty patients were treated with FDs-alone, and 112 were treated with conventional stent-asisted coiling (including 62 with double stents). The complete occlusion rate was 93.75% in the FD group and 93.61% in the conventional stent group (p = 0.979). The complication rate was 5.00% in the FD group and 8.93% in the conventional stent group (p = 0.653). The in-stent restenosis rate was 3.13% in the FD group and 5.32% in the conventional stent group (p = 0.615). The procedure duration was significantly shorter in the FD than conventional stent group (p = 0.034). After propensity score matching, 37 patients with FDs were successfully matched, and the procedure duration was still significantly shorter in the FD group (p = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

FD placement is a safe and effective treatment for IVADAs. It is also a simpler procedure with a shorter operation time than conventional stent placement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2300074171 ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT06134557.

摘要

目的

血流导向装置(FDs)越来越多地被用于颅内椎动脉夹层动脉瘤(IVADAs)的非适应证治疗。然而,FDs用于未破裂IVADAs的安全性和有效性仍不明确。本研究旨在调查单纯使用FDs是否比传统支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞更安全、更有效。

方法

我们回顾性分析了2011年12月至2022年12月期间接受血管内支架置入术的152例患者。收集并比较了单纯使用FDs支架置入术与传统支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞术患者的基线数据、动脉瘤特征、手术细节、围手术期并发症、随访血管造影和临床结果。还进行了倾向评分匹配。

结果

152例患者均成功接受了血管内治疗。40例患者单纯使用FDs治疗,112例患者接受传统支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞治疗(包括62例使用双支架)。FD组的完全闭塞率为93.75%,传统支架组为93.61%(p = 0.979)。FD组的并发症发生率为5.00%,传统支架组为8.93%(p = 0.653)。FD组的支架内再狭窄率为3.13%,传统支架组为5.32%(p = 0.615)。FD组的手术时间明显短于传统支架组(p = 0.034)。倾向评分匹配后,37例使用FDs的患者成功匹配,FD组的手术时间仍然明显较短(p = 0.042)。

结论

FD置入术是治疗IVADAs的一种安全有效的方法。与传统支架置入术相比,它也是一种更简单的手术,手术时间更短。

试验注册号

ChiCTR2300074171 美国国立医学图书馆临床试验注册中心标识符:NCT06134557。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/92bb/11652399/32a64c1ee23b/701_2024_6398_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验