A shift from open to endovascular repair in the treatment of ruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms: a single institution experience

PurposeMiddle cerebral aneurysms were underrepresented in the two largest trials (BRAT and ISAT) for the treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms. Recent institutional series addressing the choice between endovascular or open repair for this subset of aneurysms are few and have not yielded a definitive conclusion. We compare clinical outcomes of patients presenting with acute subarachnoid hemorrhage from ruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms undergoing either open or endovascular repair.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of 138 consecutive patients with ruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms admitted into our institution from January 2008 to March 2019 to compare endovascular and open surgical outcomes.ResultsOf the ruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms, 57 underwent endovascular repair while 81 were treated with open surgery. Over the study period, there was a notable shift in practice toward more frequent endovascular treatment of ruptured MCA aneurysms (31% in 2008 vs. 91% in 2018). At discharge (49.1% vs 29.6%; p = .002) and at 6 months (84.3% vs 58.6%; p = 0.003), patients who underwent endovascular repair had a higher proportion of patients with good clinical outcomes (mRS 0-2) compared to those undergoing open surgery. Long-term follow-up data (endovascular 54.9 & PLUSMN; 37.9 months vs clipping 18.6 & PLUSMN; 13.4 months) showed no difference in rebleeding (1.8% vs 3.7%, p = 0.642) and retreatment (5.3% vs 3.7%, p = 0.691) in both groups.ConclusionOur series suggests equipoise in the treatment of ruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms and demonstrates endovascular repair as a potentially feasible treatment strategy. Future randomized trials could clarify the roles of these treatment modalities.

Automated summary

This study compared the outcomes of endovascular repair and open surgical repair for ruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms. Patients who underwent endovascular repair had better clinical outcomes at discharge and at 6 months compared to those who had open surgery. Long-term follow-up data showed no difference in rebleeding and retreatment between the two groups. Therefore, endovascular repair may be a feasible treatment strategy.