4.4 Article

Validation of the Modified Raymond-Roy classification for intracranial aneurysms treated with coil embolization

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROINTERVENTIONAL SURGERY
Volume 8, Issue 9, Pages 927-933

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-012035

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The Raymond-Roy Occlusion Classification (RROC) qualitatively assesses intracranial aneurysm occlusion following endovascular coil embolization. The Modified Raymond-Roy Classification (MRRC) was developed as a refinement of this classification scheme, and dichotomizes RROC III occlusions into IIIa (opacification within the interstices of the coil mass) and IIIb (opacification between the coil mass and aneurysm wall) closures. Methods To demonstrate in an external cohort the predictive accuracy of the MRRC, the records of 326 patients with 345 intracranial aneurysms treated with endovascular coil embolization from January 2007 to December 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. Results Within this cohort, 84 (24.3%) and 83 aneurysms (24.1%) had MRRC IIIa and IIIb closures, respectively, during initial coil embolization. Progression to complete occlusion was more likely with IIIa than IIIb closures (53.6% vs 19.2%, p <= 0.01), while recanalization was more likely with IIIb than IIIa closures (65.1% vs 27.4%, p<0.01). Kaplan-Meier estimates demonstrated a significant difference in the test of equality for progression to complete occlusion (p=0.02) and recurrence (p<0.01) between class IIIa and IIIb distributions. For the entire cohort, male gender (p<0.01), ruptured aneurysm (p=0.04), intraluminal thrombus (p<0.01), and MRRC IIIb closure (p<0.01) were identified as predictors of recanalization. For aneurysms with an initial RROC III occlusion, MRRC IIIa closure was found to be an independent predictor of progression to complete occlusion (p=0.02). Conclusions This study confirms that the MRRC enhances the predictive accuracy of the RROC.

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