4.7 Article

Endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms

Journal

STROKE
Volume 32, Issue 9, Pages 1998-2004

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/hs0901.095600

Keywords

aneurysm; cerebral aneurysm; embolization, therapeutic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose-We sought to better define the morbidity of endovascular Guglielmi detachable coil (GDC) treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms and to discuss its role in the prevention of subarachnoid hemorrhage. Methods-We conducted an observational study from August 1992 to June 1999 of 125 unruptured aneurysms treated with GDC in 116 patients: 91 women (78.4%) and 25 men (21.6%), aged 30 to 78 years (mean age, 50.6 years). Immediate and late clinical results were recorded for any neurological event or hemorrhage related to the treated unruptured aneurysm. Angiographic results are reported as immediate, early (2 to 12 months), intermediate ( 12 to 30 months), and late follow-up (>30 months). Results-Immediate angiographic results showed complete obliteration (class 1) in 59 (47.2%) or residual neck (class 2) in 53 aneurysms (42.4%), leaving 6 residual aneurysms (4.8%) and 7 failures (5.6%). Early follow-up angiograms, available in 100 treated aneurysms (84%), revealed class 1 in 52% and class 2 in 41%. Intermediate angiograms, available in 53 aneurysms (44.5%), showed class 1 in 47.2% and class 2 in 43.4%, while late results, available in 37 lesions (31.1%), had class 1 and 2 in 48.6% and 37.8%, respectively. Six patients suffered a permanent neurological deficit at last follow-up (5.2%), with a good outcome in 5 patients and fair outcome in 1 patient. There was no mortality. There was no aneurysmal rupture during a mean clinical follow-up of 32.1 months. Conclusions-Endovascular treatment with GDC for unruptured aneurysms is relatively safe. Its role in the prevention of aneurysmal rupture remains to be determined, preferably by a randomized study.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available