Abstract
Background
Intracranial dissecting aneurysms present a challenging subset linked to considerable morbidity and mortality, necessitating effective therapeutic strategies to prevent complications. Traditional treatments face technical limitations, while emerging endovascular modalities like stent-assisted coiling, multiple stenting, and flow-diverting devices (FDDs) offer promise in reducing periprocedural risks and enhancing patient outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy outcomes of endovascular treatment for intracranial dissecting aneurysms using FDDs versus stents (with or without coiling).
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following established guidelines. The search included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to July 30, 2023. Eligible studies reporting outcomes of interest in both FDD and stent-treated groups were included, and the data was extracted and analyzed using STATA software.
Results
Six studies were analyzed, involving 131 patients in the FDD group and 199 patients in the stent group. The pooled rates for favorable functional outcomes (86.8% vs. 86%), mortality (3.9% vs. 6%), adequate occlusion (79.7% vs. 86.3%), aneurysm recurrence (1.3% vs. 13.3%), in-stent stenosis/thrombosis (7% vs. 6.9%), ischemic events/infarctions (6.7% vs. 7.8%), retreatment (7% vs. 8.6%), and technical success (100% vs. 98.7%) were comparable in individuals treated with FDDs and stents (p > 0.05 in all cases). Additionally, complete occlusion rates were not significantly different between FDD (62.7%) and stent-treated patients (75.2%) (p = 0.06). However, after excluding one study in a leave-one-out analysis of the random effects meta-analysis, a significant difference in the pooled rates of this outcome was observed between the FDD (59.2%) and stent (75.2%) groups (p = 0.034).
Conclusion
FDDs present a promising approach for the treatment of intracranial dissecting aneurysms, yielding outcomes that are roughly comparable to stent-based methods. However, the absence of randomized trials and data limitations highlight the need for further research to enhance treatment strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
