4.6 Article

Results of Embolization Used as the First Treatment Choice in a Consecutive Nonselected Population of Ruptured Aneurysms: Clinical Results of the Clarity GDC Study

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 69, 期 4, 页码 837-841

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182257b30

关键词

Aneurysm; Clipping; Coils; Embolization; Intracranial aneurysms; Subarachnoid hemorrhage

资金

  1. Boston Scientific Neurovascular, Fremont, California

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) showed that for ruptured aneurysms suitable for both techniques, coiling should be the first-choice treatment. Only a small proportion of patients (22%) with ruptured aneurysms were included in that trial. Operators were selected on their experience. One could then criticize the impact of the ISAT on clinical practice as a result of recruitment biases and operators' selection. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the morbidity and mortality of coiling when used as first-choice treatment in a consecutive population of patients with ruptured aneurysms treated by nonselected operators. METHODS: Thirty-four operators from 19 French centers treated 405 patients with GDC coils from November 2006 to July 2007. The method of treatment was not prespecified. RESULTS: World Federation of Neurological Societies grade at admission was I/II in 65.7% and IV/V in 30.6% of patients. At the 3- to 6-month follow-up, 23.3% of patients were dependent or dead. Thromboembolic events and intraoperative rupture resulted in permanent deficit in 13 (3.2%) and 2 (0.5%), respectively, and death in 4 (1.0%) and 0. Early rebleeding occurred in 2 patients (0.5%) with 2 subsequent deaths. Permanent treatment morbidity and mortality were 3.7 % and 1.5 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: Clinical results of the multicenter prospective Clarity registry show that when coiling is performed as first-intention treatment in a consecutive series of nonselected ruptured aneurysms by nonselected operators, clinical results are similar to those of the ISAT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据