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
Article CommentaryCOMMENTARY

Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Call for a Randomized Clinical Trial

Jean Raymond, Francois Guilbert, Alain Weill and Daniel Roy
American Journal of Neuroradiology February 2006, 27 (2) 242-243;
Jean Raymond
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Francois Guilbert
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alain Weill
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Roy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

The devastation caused by subarachnoid hemorrhage, with overall poor results despite advanced care, and the blind faith in progress that characterizes the latter half of the twentieth century have led to aggressive treatment of intracranial aneurysms before they rupture.1 Clearly, however, the outcome of elective surgery should not be compared with that of patients with intracranial hemorrhage. Prevention offers only potential benefits and targets healthy individuals; it is justified when risks of our actions are low and benefits are supported by valid trials. Although medicine has an obligation of means, prevention has an obligation of results.2 The conditions for preventive actions in the management of aneurysms have not been met, and, until this is done, screening in general for unruptured aneurysms cannot be recommended.

Confronted with difficult situations in a repetitive fashion, clinicians often develop defense mechanisms such as dogmatic attitudes, arbitrary decision trees, and habits. To question this background of habits is a difficult but necessary duty. We have witnessed a period of glorification of technology and individual skills in which expert recommendations are based on “clinical judgment,” often suspect because it leaves little room for insight and humility. The responsibilities of modern medicine include both the need to help patients understand that the uncertainty cannot be simply resolved and the professional requirement that we should not act as if we knew.3 How, then, should we deal with the uncertainty? We must first have the strength to acknowledge our doubts. For the clinician, uncertainty is painful and sterile; for the scientist, however, repeated uncertainty is an opportunity for knowledge.

Most published series on unruptured aneurysms are retrospective or prospective observational.1,4 They do not discuss the natural history of the disease, but rather give indications on the clinical effects resulting from a biased decision. For example, ISUIA investigators were quite “good” in excluding from treatment patients who were observed, because the annual risk of bleeding was low.4 Conversely, iatrogenia was relatively high in the surgical group, but the prognosis of the patients had they been observed remains unknown. Because results of nonrandomized studies cannot be extrapolated out of the original bias, generalization to scientific knowledge that can be used a priori is impossible. There is still no scientific evidence to support treatment of unruptured aneurysms.

Scientific generalizations and care for the individual are often put into opposition, but even the most casuistic clinician must admit that projected risks of a single lesion and presumed benefits of treatment for a particular patient are based on generalizations. The variability encountered in biology and medicine can be addressed only with statistical methods. There is no alternative to clinical trials when confronted with a balance between the risks of treatment against risks of hemorrhage. Resistance to clinical trials is largely responsible for the dead end that faces the management of unruptured aneurysms today. Much of this resistance has to do with discomfort regarding randomization, but the use of human subjects to reach biased conclusions would be unacceptable. Respect for human rights and dignity dictates that clinical research should not be conducted with methods that do not meet standards. Now the golden rule to prevent bias is randomization. Randomized trials are the most effective means of objectively determining the relative efficacy and “toxicity” of new interventions.5 They have shown their value in the evaluation of surgical techniques that were commonly performed without prior demonstration of their clinical benefit.6,7 Clinical trials are not meant to substitute for clinical care and results do not apply uniformly. They are, however, powerful tools to provide facts, rather than opinions, as a basis for accurate clinical judgment and actions.

A multicenter randomized trial has shown that endovascular treatment can improve the outcome of patients treated after subarachnoid hemorrhage as compared with surgical clipping.8 Epidemiologic comparisons also suggest that endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms is safer than surgery.9–12 The clinical efficacy of endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms, however, has yet to be demonstrated.13–16 A randomized comparison between coiling and clipping has been suggested, but both options may not be beneficial to most patients, whereas favorable indications may be complementary.1,4,14 So far we have attempted to identify individuals in whom a permanent but invasive solution could be justified on the basis of a long life expectancy and projected additive yearly risks of hemorrhage. The efficacy of clipping was said to be self-evident, whereas a trial designed to show benefits seemed incompatible with the timeframe of a feasible trial.4 A treatment does not have to be 100% effective to be beneficial however. Endovascular treatment may prove beneficial—or not—within an observation period that is reasonable for a trial. The main goal here is not to compare the efficacy of coiling and clipping, as defined by angiography, but rather to assess whether treatment offers prevention at a reasonable cost in terms of morbidity. Elsewhere we proposed a randomized trial comparing the mortality and morbidity of patients with unruptured aneurysms treated by endovascular coiling or by conservative management.15–16 We estimate that recruitment of a population of 2000 patients during a 3-year period in 60 centers, followed for 5−10 years, can provide answers to 2 important questions: Is endovascular treatment effective in the prevention of intracranial hemorrhage? Is the clinical outcome improved as compared with deferred treatment? Randomization will also offer more accurate estimates of the natural history and a more realistic portrait of iatrogenia than current observational and single-center experiences.

A randomized trial can reconcile the introduction of a “new” treatment with the necessity to acknowledge uncertainties, assess potential benefits scientifically, and assist individuals, alerted by our technical advances of an ominous condition, in a controlled environment that respects and promotes their autonomy.

References

  1. ↵
    Weir B. Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Review. J Neurosurg 2002;96:3–42
    PubMed
  2. ↵
    Tubiana M. Histoire de la pensée médicale; les chemins d’Esculape. Collection Champs 384. Paris: Flammarion;1995
  3. ↵
    Cadoré B. L’éthique clinique comme philosophie contextuelle. Fidès Montreal;1997
  4. ↵
    Wiebers DO, Whisnant JP, Huston J, et al. Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: natural history, clinical outcome, and risks of surgical and endovascular treatment. Lancet 2003;362:103–10
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Cleophas GC, Cleophas TJ. Clinical trials in jeopardy. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2003;41:51–55
    PubMed
  6. ↵
    EC/IC Bypass Study Group. Failure of extracranial-intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke: results of an international randomized trial: the EC/IC bypass study group. N Engl J Med 1985;313:1191–200
    PubMed
  7. Barnett HJM, Taylor DW, Eliasziw M, et al. The North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators: benefit of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic moderate or severe stenosis. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1415–25
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    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 randomised trial. Lancet 2002;360:1267–74
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Johnston SC, Wilson CB, Halbach VV, et al. Endovascular and surgical treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms: comparison of risks. Ann Neurol 2000;48:11–19
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. Johnston SC, Dudley RA, Gress DR, et al. Surgical and endovascular treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms at university hospitals. Neurology 1999;52:1799–805
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  11. Johnston SC, Zhao S, Dudley RA, et al. Unruptured aneurysm treatment in California: surgery and endovascular therapy. J Neurosurg 2001;94:188A
  12. ↵
    Johnston SC, Zhao S, Dudley RA, et al. Treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms in California. Stroke 2001;32:597–605
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    Raymond J, Guilbert F, Georganos SA, et al. Long-term angiographic recurrences after selective endovascular treatment of aneurysms with detachable coils. Stroke 2003;34:421–27
  14. ↵
    Bederson JB, Awad IA, Wiebers DO, et al. Recommendations for the management of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Stroke Council of the American Heart Association. Stroke 2000;31:2742–50
    FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    Raymond J, Chagnon M, Collet JP, et al. A randomized trial on safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms is feasible. Intervent Neuroradiol 2004;10:103–12
  16. ↵
    Roy D, Milot G, Raymond J. Endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms. Stroke 2001;32:1998–2004
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 27 (2)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 27, Issue 2
February, 2006
  • 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.
Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Call for a Randomized Clinical Trial
(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
Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Call for a Randomized Clinical Trial
Jean Raymond, Francois Guilbert, Alain Weill, Daniel Roy
American Journal of Neuroradiology Feb 2006, 27 (2) 242-243;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Call for a Randomized Clinical Trial
Jean Raymond, Francois Guilbert, Alain Weill, Daniel Roy
American Journal of Neuroradiology Feb 2006, 27 (2) 242-243;
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Detection of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage 3 months after initial bleeding: evaluation of T2* and FLAIR MR sequences at 3 T in comparison with initial non-enhanced CT as a gold standard
  • 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

  • The Needed Studies Trying to Untangle the Complex Nature of Neonatal Intracranial Bleeds Occurring around Birth
  • Cerebral Veins: A New “New Frontier”
  • Look beyond the Heart: Extracoronary Vascular Manifestations of Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection
Show more COMMENTARY

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