Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
ReplyLETTER

Reply:

G. Lanzino and A.A. Rabinstein
American Journal of Neuroradiology August 2013, 34 (8) E96; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3663
G. Lanzino
aDepartment of Neurosurgery
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A.A. Rabinstein
bDepartment of Neurology Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

We thank Drs Dursault and Raymond for their interest in our meta-analysis of prospective studies comparing clipping with coiling in patients with ruptured aneurysms. The goals of treatment for ruptured aneurysms are the following: 1) to protect the patient from aneurysm rebleeding, and 2) to minimize complications while achieving goal 1. Based on our interpretation of the literature, there is firm evidence that for a given aneurysm amenable to coiling, endovascular treatment is associated with better functional outcomes.

We agree that the results of the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT)1 weigh heavily on the finding of our analysis, but we also found it intriguing that as shown by the Table accompanying our study, the results of the 3 different trials analyzed are strikingly similar, despite methodologic differences. This finding argues that the positive association between coiling and better outcomes is real.

The Barrow Ruptured Aneurysm Trial (BRAT),2 a reaction to the results of the ISAT, reached the same overall conclusions. This outcome is remarkable because BRAT has a strong bias in favor of surgery. The design of BRAT allowed the assignment of aneurysms that were not ideal for endovascular treatment to be, nonetheless, assigned to coiling, which penalized endovascular treatment. Nevertheless, the results of BRAT show, in agreement with ISAT, that functional outcome at 1 year was better after coiling rather than after surgical treatment, both in the intent-to-treat and in the as-treated analyses.2

The argument that ISAT is not representative of the overall population of patients with ruptured aneurysms is true from a pure methodologic perspective but weak from a pragmatic and clinical point of view. It is true that more than 90% of patients randomized in ISAT were patients in good clinical grade with small anterior circulation aneurysms. However, patients with poor clinical grade and posterior circulation aneurysms were already being preferentially treated with coiling even beyond ISAT. On the other hand, most small MCA aneurysms can be still more effectively treated with an open surgical approach.

The main issue of treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms is long-term durability, not in terms of percentage of aneurysm occlusion but in terms of true risk of rerupture during long-term follow-up. This issue is still open, but so far the documented long-term risk of rerupture has been low and does not seem to negate the initial benefit of coiling, except in the very young.

More than a decade after ISAT, it is time to move beyond the issue of coiling versus clipping.3 The 2 technologies are complementary, but when feasible, endovascular treatment is associated with better outcomes. Unfortunately, there continues to be wide variability in the percentage of patients treated with coiling or surgery, and this variability is not related to scientific evidence but too often to personal egos, turf battles, and finances. For years, we have heard about absurd situations where, in “reputable” institutions, treatment of the ruptured aneurysm is based on considerations that have nothing to do with the severity of the clinical presentation or the characteristics of the aneurysm, but rather with personal preferences, convenience, or frank bias.

The availability of 2 valid therapeutic options and improvement in neurocritical care has dramatically ameliorated the prognosis of most patients with aneurysmal SAH. In our unit, we expect every patient with grades I-IV aneurysmal SAH (except those with large intraparenchymal hematomas and those who had an unwitnessed SAH with prolonged loss of consciousness) to return to a normal and productive life. If this outcome is not the case, it is often because of mistakes made along the way and not because of the SAH itself, which we have conveniently blamed for less optimal outcomes in the past.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Molyneux A,
    2. Kerr R,
    3. Stratton I,
    4. et al
    . International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002;360:1267–74
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. McDougall CG,
    2. Spetzler RF,
    3. Zabramski JM,
    4. et al
    . The Barrow Ruptured Aneurysm Trial. J Neurosurg 2012;116:135–44
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lanzino G
    . The Barrow Ruptured Aneurysm Trial. J Neurosurg 2012;116:133–34, discussion 134
    CrossRefPubMed
  • © 2013 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 34 (8)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 34, Issue 8
1 Aug 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reply:
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Reply:
G. Lanzino, A.A. Rabinstein
American Journal of Neuroradiology Aug 2013, 34 (8) E96; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3663

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Reply:
G. Lanzino, A.A. Rabinstein
American Journal of Neuroradiology Aug 2013, 34 (8) E96; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3663
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Rehashing Trial Results Won't Help with Puzzling Aneurysms–Patients Need Best Care within a Contemporary Trial
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Reply:
  • The Complementary Role of CT Perfusion and Transcranial Doppler in the Assessment of Delayed Cerebral Ischemia after Aneurysmal SAH
  • Dilator-Dotter Technique for Acute Ischemic Stroke: Further Applications in the Vertebral Arteries
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2021 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2022 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire