Single antiplatelet regimen in flow diverter treatment of cerebral aneurysms: The drug matters. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Hemorrhagic and thromboembolic complications (TECs) are the main concerns in the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms using flow diverter devices (FDs). The clinical demand for single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) is increasing especially with the development of devices with lower thrombogenicity profile. However, the safety of SAPT is not well established.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the safety and efficacy of SAPT in terms of ischemic and hemorrhagic complications in patients undergoing FDs treatment for cerebral aneurysms.

METHODS

A systematic literature search and meta-analysis were conducted in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Web of Science from January 2010 until October 2022. Twelve articles which reported SAPT and data on hemorrhagic, TECs, and mortality following FDs treatment were included.

RESULTS

Overall, the 12 studies involved 237 patients with 295 aneurysms. Five investigated the safety and efficacy of SAPT in 202 unruptured aneurysms. Six studies focused on 57 ruptured aneurysms. One study included both ruptured and unruptured aneurysms. Among the 237 patients, prasugrel was most often used as SAPT in 168 cases (70.9%), followed by aspirin in 42 (17.7%) patients, and by ticagrelor in 27 (11.4%). Overall, the hemorrhagic complication rate was 0.1% (95% CI 0% to 1.8%). The TEC rate was 7.6% (95% CI 1.7% to 16.1%). In the subgroup analysis, the TEC rates of prasugrel monotherapy of 2.4% (95% CI 0% to 9.3%) and ticagrelor monotherapy of 4.2% (95% CI 0.1% to 21.1%) were lower than of aspirin monotherapy 20.2% (95% CI 5.9% to 38.6%). The overall mortality rate was 1.3% (95% CI 0% to 6.1%).

CONCLUSION

According to the available data, SAPT regimen in patients undergoing FDs treatment for cerebral aneurysms has an acceptable safety profile, especially with the use of ADP-receptor antagonists.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.