Suppr超能文献

支架辅助与非支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞治疗宽颈颅内动脉瘤的比较:一项Meta分析

Comparison of Stent-Assisted and Non-Stent-Assisted coil embolization in the treatment of Wide-Neck intracranial aneurysms: A Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

He Yong-Lin, Ji Meng, Liao Zhi-Peng, Shang Rui, Hu Hai-Tao, Ma Yu-Hu, Richard Seidu A, Zhang Chang-Wei, Niu Liang

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.

出版信息

Neurol Sci. 2025 Aug 18. doi: 10.1007/s10072-025-08409-y.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of stent-assisted coiling (SAC) and non-stent-assisted coiling (NSAC) in the treatment of wide-neck intracranial aneurysms (WNAs).

METHODS

A meta-analysis was conducted to compare SAC and NSAC in treating WNAs. Primary outcomes were aneurysm occlusion rates and perioperative complication rates.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis, encompassing 964 patients, with 547 assigned to the SAC group and 417 to the NSAC group. The SAC group demonstrated a significantly higher long-term complete occlusion rate (RR = 1.41, 95% CI [1.18, 1.68], p < 0.001) compared to the NSAC group. Additionally, the aneurysm recurrence rate was significantly lower in the SAC group (RR = 0.41, 95% CI [0.30, 0.56], p < 0.001). However, the SAC group exhibited a significantly higher incidence of ischemic complications (RR = 2.00, 95% CI [1.37, 2.94], p < 0.001), underscoring the increased risks associated with this treatment modality. When comparing the SAC group to the balloon-assisted coiling (BAC) and dual microcatheter coiling (DMC) groups, SAC demonstrated a significant advantage only in terms of recurrence rates: BAC (RR = 0.53, 95% CI [0.30, 0.92], p = 0.025) and DMC (RR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.30, 0.80], p = 0.004). In patients with ruptured aneurysms, the SAC group achieved a significantly higher complete occlusion rate (RR = 1.35, 95% CI [1.15, 1.59], p < 0.001) and a notably lower recurrence rate (RR = 0.29, 95% CI [0.15, 0.56], p < 0.001). Despite these positive outcomes, the overall complication risk (RR = 1.35, 95% CI [1.03, 1.78], p = 0.031) and the risk of ischemic complications (RR = 2.23, 95% CI [1.43, 3.46], p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the SAC group compared to the NSAC group.

CONCLUSIONS

SAC provides superior long-term occlusion rates for RIA but is associated with higher perioperative ischemic complications than NSAC. Although it lowers recurrence compared to BAC and DMC, it may not be suitable for all patients.

摘要

目的

评估支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞术(SAC)和非支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞术(NSAC)治疗宽颈颅内动脉瘤(WNA)的安全性和有效性。

方法

进行一项荟萃分析以比较SAC和NSAC治疗WNA的效果。主要结局指标为动脉瘤闭塞率和围手术期并发症发生率。

结果

该荟萃分析共纳入11项研究,涉及964例患者,其中547例分配至SAC组,417例分配至NSAC组。与NSAC组相比,SAC组的长期完全闭塞率显著更高(RR = 1.41,95%CI[1.18, 1.68],p < 0.001)。此外,SAC组的动脉瘤复发率显著更低(RR = 0.41,95%CI[0.30, 0.56],p < 0.001)。然而,SAC组的缺血性并发症发生率显著更高(RR = 2.00,95%CI[1.37, 2.94],p < 0.001),这突出了该治疗方式相关风险的增加。当将SAC组与球囊辅助弹簧圈栓塞术(BAC)组和双微导管弹簧圈栓塞术(DMC)组进行比较时,SAC仅在复发率方面显示出显著优势:BAC组(RR = 0.53,95%CI[0.30, 0.92],p = 0.025)和DMC组(RR = 0.49,95%CI[0.30, 0.80],p = 0.004)。在破裂动脉瘤患者中,SAC组实现了显著更高的完全闭塞率(RR = 1.35,95%CI[1.15, 1.59],p < 0.001)和显著更低的复发率(RR = 0.29,95%CI[0.15, 0.56],p < 0.001)。尽管有这些积极结果,但与NSAC组相比,SAC组的总体并发症风险(RR = 1.35,95%CI[1.03, 1.78],p = 0.031)和缺血性并发症风险(RR = 2.23,95%CI[1.43, 3.46],p < 0.001)显著更高。

结论

SAC为破裂颅内动脉瘤提供了更好的长期闭塞率,但与NSAC相比,围手术期缺血性并发症更高。尽管与BAC和DMC相比它降低了复发率,但可能并不适用于所有患者。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验