4.4 Article

An outcomes-based grading scale for the evaluation of cerebral aneurysms treated with flow diversion

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROINTERVENTIONAL SURGERY
Volume 9, Issue 11, Pages 1060-+

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012688

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Object Despite the popularity of flow-diverting stents for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms, there is no widely accepted scale for the characterization of results. We present an outcomes-based grading scale that considers factors related to failure of flow diversion. Methods The grading scale was developed using the results from consecutive patients at two institutions who were treated with flow diversion for a cerebral aneurysm. The initial treatment results were graded on patient, aneurysm, and treatment characteristics. A 6-point grading scale was developed based on these data. Results One hundred and seventy-one patients were included in the patient cohort. When compared by multivariate analysis with patients without residuals, patients with aneurysm residuals were found to be older (age >= 60 years, p=0.01, OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.33), to have larger aneurysms (size >= 15 mm, p<0.01, OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.62), to have aneurysms with associated side branches (p=0.02, OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.33), and to have a posttreatment Raymond score of 2 or 3 (p=0.01, OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.56). Using the Raymond score (1-3) as the foundation for the grading scale, additional points (0 or 1) were given for the other three identified factors, creating a 6-point scale. We found that patients with residual aneurysms had statistically higher final tabulated scores (p<0.01). Conclusions We propose a novel straightforward outcomes-based scale to characterize results after flow diversion treatment of cerebral aneurysms. This scale may provide the basis for the common reporting of results in future studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available