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
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • For Authors
    • Author Policies
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

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
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • For Authors
    • Author Policies
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
LetterLetter

Questionable Interpretation of Results of ACTIVE Study on Matrix Coils by Boston Scientific

Menno Sluzewski and Willem Jan van Rooij
American Journal of Neuroradiology September 2005, 26 (8) 2163-2164;
Menno Sluzewski
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Willem Jan van Rooij
  • 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 fully agree with Raymond et al (1) that “new embolic agents should first demonstrate safety characteristics that are equivalent to standard platinum coils before considering a widespread application” and “worse, their use could be associated with early rebleeding when lesions are treated after rupture” (p. 1129).

These concerns are even more important and urgent when companies of embolic agents provide us with questionable interpretations of study results. In the 2004 Matrix Newsletter, the results of the so-called ACTIVE Study are presented (2). Matrix coils are coated with a biologically active substance and proved to accelerate healing of intracranial aneurysms in swine, and it is concluded that these coils may prevent aneurysmal recanalization after endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms (3).

The first page of the newsletter states, “The ACTIVE Study represents the first prospective multicenter trial designed to evaluate the benefit of the Matrix Detachable Coil for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms and was sponsored by Boston Scientific, Neurovascular, Fremont, CA.”

On the second page, it is reported that 3% of the patients treated with Matrix coils suffered a fatal early rebleeding (three of 100). On closer inspection, however, only 44 of these 100 patients were treated after aneurysmal rupture. Thus, the early fatal rebleeding rate should have been reported to be 7% (three of 44) instead of 3%. In the ISAT study (4), in which the patients were treated with standard platinum coils, 10 of 1005 patients suffered an early rebleeding after coiling of a ruptured aneurysm (1%).

Apart from the fact that this 7% of rebleeding rate after treatment with Matrix is unacceptably high, these findings are not surprising after review of the remaining part of the newsletter: it is reported that 67% of the coiled aneurysms still show residual aneurysm filling on the immediate postembolization angiogram. On the 12-month follow-up angiogram, 49% of the aneurysms show “progressive thrombosis.” Apparently the Matrix coils allow residual filling of the aneurysmal sac over an unknown period of time and during this period the patient is not protected against a rebleeding.

In the evaluation of these new coils that possibly improve long-term results, the most important goal of ruptured aneurysm treatment—that is, to exclude the aneurysm from the circulation to prevent early rebleeding—is clearly ignored.

So do these new coils at least perform better in the long term than they were designed to? On page 3, the results of follow-up angiography after 12 months are discussed. In a complex and confusing way, an attempt is made to compare these findings on follow-up with historical data, but in a presentation by the company we find out that 16% of the followed patients had to be retreated with coils (5). The retreatment rate after treatment with standard platinum coils is in the range of 10% (6).

The conclusion of the ACTIVE Study should therefore not be that “the results of 1st treatment with 1st Generation Matrix Detachable Coils are favorable,” but that Matrix coils offer no benefit over standard platinum coils and that these coils should not be used to treat recently ruptured cerebral aneurysms.

References

  1. ↵
    Raymond J, Guilbert F, Weill A, et al. Safety, science and sales: a request for valid clinical trials to assess new devices for endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:1128–1130
    FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Matrix newsletter. 2004. Boston Scientific, Fremont, CA
  3. ↵
    Murayama Y, Tateshima S, Gonzalez NR, Vinuela F. Matrix and bioabsorbable polymeric coils accelerate healing of intracranial aneurysms: long-term experimental study. Stroke 2003;34:2031–2037
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Molyneux A, Kerr R, Stratton I, et al. International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomized trial. Lancet 2002;360:1267–1274
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Benelux Matrix users meeting. November 9–10, 2004, Corsendonk, Belgium
  6. ↵
    Slob MJ, Sluzewski M, van Rooij WJ, et al. Additional coiling of previously coiled cerebral aneurysms: clinical and angiographic results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:1373–1376
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 26 (8)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 26, Issue 8
1 Sep 2005
  • 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.
Questionable Interpretation of Results of ACTIVE Study on Matrix Coils by Boston Scientific
(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
Questionable Interpretation of Results of ACTIVE Study on Matrix Coils by Boston Scientific
Menno Sluzewski, Willem Jan van Rooij
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2005, 26 (8) 2163-2164;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Questionable Interpretation of Results of ACTIVE Study on Matrix Coils by Boston Scientific
Menno Sluzewski, Willem Jan van Rooij
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2005, 26 (8) 2163-2164;
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

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • Reply
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • In Memoriam: The Matrix Coil
  • Bioactivity and bioinactivity: two sides of the same coin
  • 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

  • Medicare Coverage of Amyloid PET: Implications for Clinical Practice
  • Fair Performance of CT in Diagnosing Unilateral Vocal Fold Paralysis
  • Reply:
Show more LETTER

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

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

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal

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

Powered by HighWire