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
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • 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
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • 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
Research ArticleInterventional

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Intracranial Aneurysms: Procedural Rupture versus Spontaneous Rupture

H.H. Choi, E.J. Ha, J.J. Lee, D.H. Yoo, W.-S. Cho, J.E. Kim, Y.D. Cho, M.H. Han and H.-S. Kang
American Journal of Neuroradiology November 2017, 38 (11) 2126-2130; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5344
H.H. Choi
aFrom the Departments of Neurosurgery (H.H.C.), Dongguk University College of Medicine, Dongguk University Hospital, Ilsan, Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for H.H. Choi
E.J. Ha
bDepartments of Neurosurgery (E.J.H., W.-S.C., J.E.K., H.-S.K.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for E.J. Ha
J.J. Lee
cRadiology (J.J.L., D.H.Y., Y.D.C, M.H.H.), Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for J.J. Lee
D.H. Yoo
cRadiology (J.J.L., D.H.Y., Y.D.C, M.H.H.), Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for D.H. Yoo
W.-S. Cho
bDepartments of Neurosurgery (E.J.H., W.-S.C., J.E.K., H.-S.K.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for W.-S. Cho
J.E. Kim
bDepartments of Neurosurgery (E.J.H., W.-S.C., J.E.K., H.-S.K.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for J.E. Kim
Y.D. Cho
cRadiology (J.J.L., D.H.Y., Y.D.C, M.H.H.), Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Y.D. Cho
M.H. Han
cRadiology (J.J.L., D.H.Y., Y.D.C, M.H.H.), Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for M.H. Han
H.-S. Kang
bDepartments of Neurosurgery (E.J.H., W.-S.C., J.E.K., H.-S.K.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for H.-S. Kang
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Procedural rupture of an intracranial aneurysm is a devastating complication in endovascular treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with procedural rupture of unruptured saccular intracranial aneurysms compared with those with spontaneously ruptured aneurysms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for 1340 patients with 1595 unruptured saccular intracranial aneurysms that underwent endovascular coil embolization between February 2010 and December 2014. The clinical outcomes of patients with procedural rupture of unruptured saccular intracranial aneurysms were compared with those of 198 patients presenting with spontaneously ruptured aneurysms.

RESULTS: In this series, procedural rupture developed in 19 patients (1.4% per patient and 1.2% per aneurysm), and the morbidity related to procedural rupture was 26.3% (95% confidence interval, 8.5%–61.4%) with no mortality. Hunt and Hess scale grades and hospitalization days of patients with procedural rupture were equivalent to those of patients presenting with spontaneous aneurysm rupture. Subsequent treatment procedures after hemorrhage (including lumbar drainage, extraventricular drainage, decompressive craniectomy, and permanent shunt) showed no difference between the 2 groups. The hemorrhage volumes were smaller in the procedural-rupture group (P = .03), and the endovascular vasospasm therapies tended to be more frequently required in the spontaneous aneurysm–rupture group (P = .08). At postictus 6 months, the proportion of modified Rankin Scale scores of ≥2 were lower in the procedural-rupture group (5.3% versus 26.8%, P = .049). In multivariate analysis, spontaneous aneurysm rupture was a significant risk factor for worse clinical outcome (OR = 14.9; 95% CI, 1.2–193.1; P = .039).

CONCLUSIONS: This study showed better clinical outcomes in the procedural-rupture group. Even though there is a potential chance of aneurysm rupture during treatment, the clinical outcomes after procedural bleeds seem to be more favorable than those of spontaneous rupture.

ABBREVIATIONS:

PR
procedural rupture
SR
spontaneous aneurysm rupture
UIA
unruptured saccular intracranial aneurysm

Endovascular coil embolization for intracranial aneurysms is a recent development that is gradually replacing surgical clipping because of attributes that include minimal invasiveness and lower rates of morbidity and mortality.1,2 Nevertheless, procedural rupture (PR) of an aneurysm being treated remains a devastating complication in endovascular treatment. Although the incidence, risk factors, and clinical outcome of PR have been previously reported,1,3⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–9 the clinical prognosis of pure PR remains unclear because the reports included ruptured aneurysms, hindering the assessment of the harmful influence of PR. In addition, there have been various treatment guidelines in unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs),10⇓⇓⇓–14 and some argue that no treatment might be cost-effective in some clinical situations.10,15,16 In principle, the treatment decision should be made on the basis of treatment benefit and its accompanying risks in comparison with the disease burden. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of patients with PR of UIAs compared with those with spontaneously ruptured aneurysms.

Materials and Methods

Patient Characteristics

From February 2010 to December 2014, 2025 aneurysms in 1711 patients were treated with endovascular procedures at a single tertiary care institution (Seoul National University Hospital). Of these, 232 aneurysms were excluded from statistical analysis; they were retreated, dissecting, blisterlike, or false aneurysms. Thus, we intended to analyze the clinical outcomes of PR in saccular aneurysms treated with detachable coil embolization. The study cohort included 1531 patients with 1793 saccular aneurysms treated in 1538 sessions. Among them, 198 patients presented with subarachnoid hemorrhage. There were 455 (29.7%) male and 1076 (70.3%) female patients with a mean age of 55.8 years (median, 59 years; range, 13–89 years) at the time of the procedure. The procedural rupture occurred in 1.2% per aneurysm (19/1595) among patients with unruptured aneurysms. We compared the clinical outcomes of the 19 patients (PR group) with those of 198 patients with spontaneously ruptured aneurysms (SR group). This study was conducted according to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the institutional review board.

Treatment

The endovascular treatment technique was properly selected under the consensus of the cerebrovascular team in a multidisciplinary decision-making process with consideration of the patient's preference. The coiling of aneurysms was performed mostly with the patient under general anesthesia. For these patients with unruptured aneurysms, preprocedural medication with antiplatelet agents was provided. Systemic administration of heparin was performed after deployment of an arterial introducer sheath in unruptured aneurysms and after placement of the first coil in ruptured aneurysms with a bolus dose of 3000 IU followed by a maintenance dose of 1000 IU per hour with monitoring of the activated clotting time. Several kinds of detachable coils, chosen by the operator, were used. Coil placement proceeded until optimal satisfactory aneurysm obliteration was achieved.

Procedural rupture was diagnosed by the extravasation of contrast and direct visualization of a device outside the aneurysm lumen on cerebral angiography. When PR occurred, protamine sulfate was administered immediately to reverse the effects of heparin and coils were deployed quickly to occlude the aneurysm. After the embolization, a CT scan was performed to evaluate the amount of subarachnoid hemorrhage and the development of hydrocephalus. Depending on the patient's neurologic condition, further intervention ensued, which included lumbar drainage, extraventricular drainage, or decompressive surgery. Endovascular vasospasm therapy was performed when the patients showed neurologic deterioration with angiographic vasospasm during the ensuing days.

Clinical Variables and Outcomes

All the relevant medical records were reviewed, including data regarding patient age, sex, aneurysm location, maximal aneurysm diameter, applied endovascular treatment technique, Hunt and Hess scale grade,17 modified Fisher grade,18 hospitalization days, and clinical outcome. The treatment procedural data, including lumbar drainage, extraventricular drainage, decompressive craniectomy, endovascular vasospasm therapy, and ventriculoperitoneal shunt, were also collected.

Aneurysm size was measured on the basis of 3D reconstruction angiograms. Follow-up angiographic results were evaluated with the last follow-up digital subtraction angiography and/or MR angiography. The results were divided into 2 categories: stable occlusion and recanalization.

Hunt and Hess scale grades were immediately assessed after recovery from anesthesia in the PR group and were assessed on admission in the SR group. Adjustments were not made for comorbidities. The modified Fisher grades were denoted and then were categorized into 2 groups: small hemorrhage volume (grade 1) and large volume (grades 2–4). Clinical outcome was evaluated with the modified Rankin Scale scores, and poor functional outcome was defined as an mRS score of ≥2 at postictus 6 months.19 When 6-month mRS scores were not recorded, the score nearest to 6 months was used in the analysis.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were expressed as the mean ± SD (range). χ2, Fisher exact, and Student t tests were performed as necessary. A binary logistic regression model was used to ensure that procedural or spontaneous aneurysm rupture was independently predictive of clinical outcomes. Log-rank tests were used to compare time to aneurysm recanalization. A 2-tailed P value < .05 was considered statistically significant. The data were analyzed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 21; IBM, Armonk, New York) and MedCalc for Windows, Version 14.12.0 (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium).

Results

Enrolled Patients and Aneurysms

The patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. There was a somewhat higher proportion of female patients in the PR group (PR versus SR group, 84.2% versus 58.6%; P = .047). Mean aneurysmal size was larger in the SR group (6.5 versus 4.6 mm, P = .01). The most frequent aneurysm location was the internal carotid artery (47.4%) in the PR group and the anterior cerebral artery in the SR group (47.0%).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1:

Comparison of patient characteristics

The distribution of Hunt and Hess scale grades was not significantly different between the 2 groups. The hemorrhage volume, determined by modified Fisher grade, was larger in the SR group (P = .03). Most (73.7%) in the PR group showed grade 1 bleeds, while more than half of the patients in the SR group presented with higher than grade 1 bleeds.

Procedural Characteristics

The endovascular procedures and subsequent interventions are presented in Table 2. The embolization techniques were significantly different between the 2 groups (P < .01); notably, the balloon-remodeling technique was more frequently used in the PR group (PR group versus SR group, 21.1% versus 2.5%; P < .01). The culprit devices causing procedural aneurysmal rupture were coils in most cases (n = 17, 89.5%), and the remaining devices were microcatheters (n = 2, 10.5%).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2:

Comparison of embolization techniques and treatment proceduresa

The procedures subsequent to the coil embolization were not significantly different between the 2 groups (Table 2), except that more patients tended to require endovascular vasospasm therapy in the SR group (PR group versus SR group, 0% versus 16.2%; P = .08). On further analysis, the patients with larger hemorrhage volume required endovascular vasospasm therapy more frequently (modified Fisher grade 1 versus grades 2–4, 8.7% versus 20.2%, P = .02).

Clinical Outcomes

All 19 patients in the PR group were asymptomatic before PR. Headache without neurologic symptoms was the most common symptom following PR (n = 13, 68.4%), followed by motor weakness (n = 3, 15.8%), diplopia (n = 1), and altered mentality (n = 1). One patient was asymptomatic despite PR. The hospitalization days of the PR group were 13.7 days on average (median, 12 days; range, 3–63 days), which did not differ significantly from those patients in the SR group (mean, 18.4 days; median, 15 days: range, 3–209 days) (P = .25) (Table 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3:

Comparison of clinical outcome and imaging follow-up

In the PR group, there were 5 patients with morbidity (26.3%; 95% confidence interval, 8.5%–61.4%) and no mortality. Compromised clinical outcome (defined as an mRS score of ≥2) at the 6-month follow-up evaluation was found in 1 patient (5.3%) in the PR group, whose mRS score was 4 (Fig 1). The other 18 patients did not have any associated symptoms at postictus 6 months. In the SR group, compromised clinical outcomes were found in 53 patients (26.8%), which was a significantly higher rate in comparison with that in the PR group (P = .049) (Fig 2). Multivariate analysis indicated that spontaneous aneurysm rupture was one of independent risk factors for poor clinical outcome (OR = 14.9; 95% CI, 1.2–193.1; P = .039), along with patient age, Hunt and Hess scale grade, and the amount of bleed as measured by the modified Fisher grade (Table 4).

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

Cerebral angiography demonstrates a right posterior communicating artery aneurysm (A). During coil embolization with balloon remodeling, the aneurysm was ruptured by a coil (B). Despite rapid obliteration of the ruptured aneurysm, the volume of subarachnoid hemorrhage was considerable (modified Fisher grade 3) (C).

Fig 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 2.

Modified Rankin Scale scores at the 6-month posttreatment period.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4:

Logistic regression model assessing risk factors of poor clinical outcome

Follow-up angiographic images were available in 15 patients (78.9%) in the PR group and in 162 (81.8%) in the SR group. One of the 15 patients (6.7%) had recanalization in the PR group, and 40 (20.2%) had recanalization in the SR group (P = .064). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the rates of stable aneurysmal occlusion are presented in Fig 3.

Fig 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 3.

Kaplan-Meier estimates of the rates of stable aneurysmal occlusion: procedural rupture group versus spontaneous rupture group.

Discussion

In our study, 1340 patients with 1595 UIAs were treated with endovascular coil embolization. The risk of PR was low (1.4% per patient and 1.2% per aneurysm), like that in previous studies that reported a 0%–2.2% rate of PR in UIAs.1⇓–3,5,7 The PR-related symptomatic complication rate was 0.1% (1 of 1340) in clinical assessment at 6 months after ictus. The hospitalization days and Hunt and Hess scale grades did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. However, the proportion of patients with small hemorrhage volume (modified Fisher grade 1) was greater, and endovascular vasospasm therapies were less frequently required in the PR group. Accordingly, the clinical outcomes in the patients with PR of UIAs were more favorable compared with those of the patients presenting with spontaneously ruptured aneurysms. Although we cannot choose between spontaneous SAH and intraoperative rupture, physicians may inform patients with UIAs of expected clinical outcomes of PR before decision-making for the treatment.

Many neurointerventionists are concerned about PR. Various factors, including size, location, and morphology of aneurysms and a previous rupture history, have been analyzed to evaluate the risk factors of PR.1,3⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–9 A multicenter study reported increased periprocedural death or disability in 63% of patients with PR compared with 15% without PR,20 and another study reported a 33% risk of death and 5% risk of disability with PR in ruptured aneurysms.21 However, the clinical outcome for PR of UIAs is not well-described because of the limited number of cases.1,6,22,23 Concerning unruptured aneurysms, Im et al2 and Schuette et al5 reported 4 cases and 1 case of PR, respectively; there was no mortality or morbidity, but the number of cases was too small to conclude a reliable clinical outcome. Mitchell et al7 reported higher rates of 30-day mortality with PR of UIAs (1 of 6, 16.7%) than in patients without PR (2 of 249, 0.8%). In the present study, there were 5 cases of morbidity but no mortality in the 19 PR cases treated for unruptured aneurysms. At 6 months after ictus, only 1 of 1340 patients (0.1%) had poor mRS scores (> 2) related to PR.

The clinical outcome of PR seems to have 1 of 2 extremes: death or recovery.22 Sluzewski et al22 reported 20 deaths and 31 good outcomes in 51 procedure-related ruptures; most patients (97.4%) were treated after rupture. Of the 19 patients with PR in our series, 5 had neurologic symptoms such as weakness or altered mentality, and 14 patients had headache only on the immediate neurologic examination after PR. In the 5 symptomatic patients, only 1 patient had permanent hemiparesis, and 4 patients fully recovered without neurologic sequelae. Unlike those with ruptured aneurysms, the patients with PR of UIAs had favorable functional outcomes and did not have fatal outcomes. The favorable results in PR of UIAs might be due to the rapid obliteration of the aneurysm to prevent massive hemorrhage when PR occurs during coil embolization. When the PR occurred, additional coils were deployed promptly, sometimes in conjunction with a balloon or a stent to control leakage. Symptomatic vasospasm after aneurysmal SAH occurred in 16.2% of patients with spontaneously ruptured aneurysms, comparable with reported rates of 17%–40%.24 Notably, the patients with PR did not present with symptomatic vasospasm in any case in our series. We believe that the rapid obliteration of PR leads to less hemorrhage volume, no symptomatic vasospasm, and more favorable clinical outcomes.

Stapleton et al9 reported an increased risk of symptomatic hydrocephalus requiring temporary or permanent cerebral fluid diversion with rerupture of ruptured intracranial aneurysms. In our study, treatment procedures after rupture were not significantly different between the PR and SR groups, including lumbar drainage, extraventricular drainage, decompressive craniectomy, and permanent ventricular shunt.

In the present study, the balloon remodeling technique was used less often in the SR group than in the PR group. Several multicenter studies reported that balloon-remodeling coil embolization was not related to an increase in PR.25,26 In contrast, Sluzewski et al27 reported a high complication rate with balloon-remodeling coil embolization. The increased risk of PR during balloon-remodeling coil embolization is still debated.25,28⇓–30

This study has limitations inherent in a single-institution retrospective study. Therefore, the results should be viewed considering the statistical constraint resulting from the limited number of patients with PR. A multicenter study with a larger number of cases is needed to confirm the results.

Conclusions

The patients with PR of UIAs had less hemorrhage volume with lower modified Fisher grades and underwent endovascular vasospasm therapy less frequently than those with SR. Accordingly, clinical outcomes of these patients were more favorable. Patients with PR of UIAs can recover well if rapid obliteration of the aneurysm and subsequent appropriate management are undertaken.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures: Moon Hee Han—UNRELATED: Consultancy: MicroVention*. *Money paid to the institution.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Brisman JL,
    2. Niimi Y,
    3. Song JK, et al
    . Aneurysmal rupture during coiling: low incidence and good outcomes at a single large volume center. Neurosurgery 2005;57:1103–09; discussion 1103–09 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000185631.20246.1A pmid:16331157
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Im SH,
    2. Han MH,
    3. Kwon OK, et al
    . Endovascular coil embolization of 435 small asymptomatic unruptured intracranial aneurysms: procedural morbidity and patient outcome. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:79–84 pmid:18768715
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Li MH,
    2. Gao BL,
    3. Fang C, et al
    . Prevention and management of intraprocedural rupture of intracranial aneurysm with detachable coils during embolization. Neuroradiology 2006;48:907–15 doi:10.1007/s00234-006-0147-3 pmid:17004083
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Nguyen TN,
    2. Raymond J,
    3. Guilbert F, et al
    . Association of endovascular therapy of very small ruptured aneurysms with higher rates of procedure-related rupture. J Neurosurg 2008;108:1088–92 doi:10.3171/JNS/2008/108/6/1088 pmid:18518708
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Schuette AJ,
    2. Hui FK,
    3. Spiotta AM, et al
    . Endovascular therapy of very small aneurysms of the anterior communicating artery: five-fold increased incidence of rupture. Neurosurgery 2011;68:731–37; discussion 737 doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182077373 pmid:21164380
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Santillan A,
    2. Gobin YP,
    3. Greenberg ED, et al
    . Intraprocedural aneurysmal rupture during coil embolization of brain aneurysms: role of balloon-assisted coiling. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:2017–21 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3061 pmid:22555586
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Mitchell PJ,
    2. Muthusamy S,
    3. Dowling R, et al
    . Does small aneurysm size predict intraoperative rupture during coiling in ruptured and unruptured aneurysms? J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;22:1298–303 doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2012.10.017 pmid:23265780
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Zhang Y,
    2. Li G,
    3. Cai Y, et al
    . Rupture during the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms: outcomes and technical aspects. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2013;155:569–77 doi:10.1007/s00701-013-1628-x pmid:23397273
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Stapleton CJ,
    2. Walcott BP,
    3. Butler WE, et al
    . Neurological outcomes following intraprocedural rerupture during coil embolization of ruptured intracranial aneurysms. J Neurosurg 2015;122:128–35 doi:10.3171/2014.9.JNS14616 pmid:25361491
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Komotar RJ,
    2. Mocco J,
    3. Solomon RA
    . Guidelines for the surgical treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: the first annual J Lawrence Pool memorial research symposium—controversies in the management of cerebral aneurysms. Neurosurgery 2008;62:183–93; discussion 193–94 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000311076.64109.2E pmid:18300906
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Thompson BG,
    2. Brown R Jr.,
    3. Amin-Hanjani S, et al
    ; American Heart Association Stroke Council, Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, and Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, American Heart Association, American Stroke Association. Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2015;46:2368–400 doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000070 pmid:26089327
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Steiner T,
    2. Juvela S,
    3. Unterberg A, et al
    . European Stroke Organization. European Stroke Organization guidelines for the management of intracranial aneurysms and subarachnoid haemorrhage. Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:93–112 doi:10.1159/000346087 pmid:23406828
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Burns JD,
    2. Brown RD Jr.
    . Treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: surgery, coiling, or nothing? Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2009;9:6–12 doi:10.1007/s11910-009-0002-0 pmid:19080747
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Raabe A,
    2. Seifert V,
    3. Schmiedek P, et al
    ; American Heart Association, Section of Vascular Neurosurgery of the German Society of Neurosurgery. Recommendations for the management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms [in German]. Zentralbl Neurochir 2002;63:70–76 doi:10.1055/s-2002-33972 pmid:12224033
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Greving JP,
    2. Rinkel GJ,
    3. Buskens E, et al
    . Cost-effectiveness of preventive treatment of intracranial aneurysms: new data and uncertainties. Neurology 2009;73:258–65 doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0b013e3181a2a4ea pmid:19299311
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Brown RD Jr.,
    2. Broderick JP
    . Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: epidemiology, natural history, management options, and familial screening. Lancet Neurol 2014;13:393–404 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70015-8 pmid:24646873
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Hunt WE,
    2. Hess RM
    . Surgical risk as related to time of intervention in the repair of intracranial aneurysms. J Neurosurg 1968;28:14–20 doi:10.3171/jns.1968.28.1.0014 pmid:5635959
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Frontera JA,
    2. Claassen J,
    3. Schmidt JM, et al
    . Prediction of symptomatic vasospasm after subarachnoid hemorrhage: the modified Fisher scale. Neurosurgery 2006;59:21–27; discussion 21–27 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000218821.34014.1B pmid:16823296
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. van Swieten JC,
    2. Koudstaal PJ,
    3. Visser MC, et al
    . Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988;19:604–07 doi:10.1161/01.STR.19.5.604 pmid:3363593
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Elijovich L,
    2. Higashida RT,
    3. Lawton MT, et al
    ; Cerebral Aneurysm Rerupture After Treatment (CARAT) Investigators. Predictors and outcomes of intraprocedural rupture in patients treated for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: the CARAT study. Stroke 2008;39:1501–06 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.504670 pmid:18323484
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Cloft HJ,
    2. Kallmes DF
    . Cerebral aneurysm perforations complicating therapy with Guglielmi detachable coils: a meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:1706–09 pmid:12427628
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Sluzewski M,
    2. Bosch JA,
    3. van Rooij WJ, et al
    . Rupture of intracranial aneurysms during treatment with Guglielmi detachable coils: incidence, outcome, and risk factors. J Neurosurg 2001;94:238–40 doi:10.3171/jns.2001.94.2.0238 pmid:11213960
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Tummala RP,
    2. Chu RM,
    3. Madison MT, et al
    . Outcomes after aneurysm rupture during endovascular coil embolization. Neurosurgery 2001;49:1059–66; discussion 1066–67 pmid:11846898
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Charpentier C,
    2. Audibert G,
    3. Guillemin F, et al
    . Multivariate analysis of predictors of cerebral vasospasm occurrence after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke 1999;30:1402–08 doi:10.1161/01.STR.30.7.1402 pmid:10390314
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Cognard C,
    3. Anxionnat R, et al
    . Remodeling technique for endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms had a higher rate of adequate postoperative occlusion than did conventional coil embolization with comparable safety. Radiology 2011;258:546–53 doi:10.1148/radiol.10100894 pmid:21131582
    CrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Spelle L,
    3. Vitry F
    . Immediate clinical outcome of patients harboring unruptured intracranial aneurysms treated by endovascular approach: results of the ATENA study. Stroke 2008;39:2497–504 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.512756 pmid:18617659
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Sluzewski M,
    2. van Rooij WJ,
    3. Beute GN, et al
    . Balloon-assisted coil embolization of intracranial aneurysms: incidence, complications, and angiography results. J Neurosurg 2006;105:396–99 doi:10.3171/jns.2006.105.3.396 pmid:16961133
    CrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Levy E,
    2. Koebbe CJ,
    3. Horowitz MB, et al
    . Rupture of intracranial aneurysms during endovascular coiling: management and outcomes. Neurosurgery 2001;49:807–11; discussion 811–13 pmid:11564240
    CrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Spelle L,
    3. Leclerc X, et al
    . Endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: comparison of safety of remodeling technique and standard treatment with coils. Radiology 2009;251:846–55 doi:10.1148/radiol.2513081056 pmid:19318586
    CrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Cognard C,
    3. Spelle L, et al
    . Safety and efficacy of balloon remodeling technique during endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms: critical review of the literature. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:12–15 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2403 pmid:21349960
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  • Received March 28, 2017.
  • Accepted after revision June 9, 2017.
  • © 2017 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 38 (11)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 38, Issue 11
1 Nov 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
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.
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Intracranial Aneurysms: Procedural Rupture versus Spontaneous Rupture
(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
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Intracranial Aneurysms: Procedural Rupture versus Spontaneous Rupture
H.H. Choi, E.J. Ha, J.J. Lee, D.H. Yoo, W.-S. Cho, J.E. Kim, Y.D. Cho, M.H. Han, H.-S. Kang
American Journal of Neuroradiology Nov 2017, 38 (11) 2126-2130; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5344

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Intracranial Aneurysms: Procedural Rupture versus Spontaneous Rupture
H.H. Choi, E.J. Ha, J.J. Lee, D.H. Yoo, W.-S. Cho, J.E. Kim, Y.D. Cho, M.H. Han, H.-S. Kang
American Journal of Neuroradiology Nov 2017, 38 (11) 2126-2130; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5344
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Coil Embolization in Patients with Recurrent Cerebral Aneurysms Who Previously Underwent Surgical Clipping
  • 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

  • Use of the Woven EndoBridge Device for Sidewall Aneurysms: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
  • WEB Treatment of Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: Long-Term Follow-up of a Single-Center Cohort of 100 Patients
  • Association between Infarct Location and Hemorrhagic Transformation of Acute Ischemic Stroke following Successful Recanalization after Mechanical Thrombectomy
Show more Interventional

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2022 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

© 2023 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire