Impact of A1 Asymmetry on the Woven EndoBridge Device in Anterior Communicating Artery Aneurysms.
Journal
AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology
ISSN: 1936-959X
Titre abrégé: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003708
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
received:
08
02
2021
accepted:
16
03
2021
pubmed:
13
6
2021
medline:
25
11
2021
entrez:
12
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Woven EndoBridge (WEB) devices are increasingly used to treat intracranial aneurysms. A1 asymmetry contributes to anterior communicating artery aneurysm formation and to treatment instability after coiling. We sought to evaluate whether A1 asymmetry had an impact on angiographic outcome in anterior communicating artery aneurysms treated with the WEB. Anterior communicating artery aneurysms treated between July 2012 and July 2020 with the WEB from an institutional review board-approved database were reviewed. A1 asymmetry was categorized as the following: absence of the A1 segment on 1 side (unilateral A1) versus bilateral A1. Univariate and multivariable analyses assessed independent predictors of adequate (WEB Occlusion Scale A, B, and C) and complete occlusion (WEB Occlusion Scale A and B). Forty-eight individual aneurysms (47 patients) were included in the final analysis, of which 16 (33%) were acutely ruptured. The mean size was 6.5 (SD, 2.2) mm. Adequate and complete occlusion was achieved in 33 (69%) and 30 (63%) cases, respectively. Unilateral A1 was associated with significantly higher rates of adequate (92% versus 60% for bilateral A1; Anterior communicating artery aneurysms with a unilateral A1 configuration treated with WEB devices are associated with better angiographic outcome than those with bilateral A1. This finding supports the hypothesis that WEB devices are resistant to unilateral flow in the aneurysm as opposed to coils.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Woven EndoBridge (WEB) devices are increasingly used to treat intracranial aneurysms. A1 asymmetry contributes to anterior communicating artery aneurysm formation and to treatment instability after coiling. We sought to evaluate whether A1 asymmetry had an impact on angiographic outcome in anterior communicating artery aneurysms treated with the WEB.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Anterior communicating artery aneurysms treated between July 2012 and July 2020 with the WEB from an institutional review board-approved database were reviewed. A1 asymmetry was categorized as the following: absence of the A1 segment on 1 side (unilateral A1) versus bilateral A1. Univariate and multivariable analyses assessed independent predictors of adequate (WEB Occlusion Scale A, B, and C) and complete occlusion (WEB Occlusion Scale A and B).
RESULTS
Forty-eight individual aneurysms (47 patients) were included in the final analysis, of which 16 (33%) were acutely ruptured. The mean size was 6.5 (SD, 2.2) mm. Adequate and complete occlusion was achieved in 33 (69%) and 30 (63%) cases, respectively. Unilateral A1 was associated with significantly higher rates of adequate (92% versus 60% for bilateral A1;
CONCLUSIONS
Anterior communicating artery aneurysms with a unilateral A1 configuration treated with WEB devices are associated with better angiographic outcome than those with bilateral A1. This finding supports the hypothesis that WEB devices are resistant to unilateral flow in the aneurysm as opposed to coils.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34117022
pii: ajnr.A7189
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A7189
pmc: PMC8367618
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1479-1485Informations de copyright
© 2021 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.
Références
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 May;11(5):511-515
pubmed: 30655358
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2021 Jan;42(2):334-339
pubmed: 33303525
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Aug;35(8):1551-5
pubmed: 24948501
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Sep;11(9):924-930
pubmed: 30992395
Neurosurgery. 2015 May;76(5):522-30;discussion 530
pubmed: 25710103
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009 Sep;30(8):1502-6
pubmed: 19461055
Stroke. 2013 Nov;44(11):3018-26
pubmed: 23899912
N Engl J Med. 2006 Aug 31;355(9):928-39
pubmed: 16943405
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020 Jun;41(6):1031-1036
pubmed: 32467180
Surg Neurol. 2006;66 Suppl 3:S12-9; discussion S19
pubmed: 17081844
J Neuroradiol. 2017 Jul;44(4):262-268
pubmed: 28478112
J Neurointerv Surg. 2021 Apr;13(4):363-368
pubmed: 32532858
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Nov;11(11):1118-1122
pubmed: 30975737
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019 Oct;40(10):1773-1778
pubmed: 31537514
J Neurointerv Surg. 2015 Aug;7(8):591-5
pubmed: 24984707
World Neurosurg. 2020 Apr;136:e1-e23
pubmed: 31419591
Stroke. 2007 Sep;38(9):2500-5
pubmed: 17673714
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Oct;36(10):1942-6
pubmed: 26159516
J Neurointerv Surg. 2021 Jul;13(7):669-673
pubmed: 32989033
J Neurointerv Surg. 2020 May;12(5):512-520
pubmed: 32005760
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Jul;35(7):1353-7
pubmed: 24524918
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Jun;38(6):1151-1155
pubmed: 28450432
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009 Feb;30(2):297-302
pubmed: 19131411
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010 Aug;31(7):1186-91
pubmed: 20360345
J Neurointerv Surg. 2014 Apr 1;6(3):178-83
pubmed: 23612892
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Apr;11(4):386-389
pubmed: 30291206
Interv Neuroradiol. 2020 Aug;26(4):455-460
pubmed: 32028824