Safety and Efficacy of Management for Intraprocedural Rupture During Endovascular Treatment for Intracranial Aneurysms.
Journal
Neurosurgery
ISSN: 1524-4040
Titre abrégé: Neurosurgery
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7802914
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Aug 2024
01 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
23
03
2024
accepted:
19
06
2024
medline:
1
8
2024
pubmed:
1
8
2024
entrez:
1
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Although intraprocedural rupture (IPR) is rare, it is a devastating complication of endovascular treatment (EVT) for intracranial aneurysms. Very few studies have been conducted on IPR, and the safety and efficacy of management techniques of IPR have not been investigated. Patients who experienced IPR during EVT between 2013 and 2022 were enrolled from a multicenter observational registry. We examined the safety and efficacy of the management of IPR using imaging markers, including increased hemorrhage and ischemic lesions, which were evaluated using postoperative computed tomography and diffusion-weighted imaging, respectively. Of the 3269 EVTs for intracranial aneurysms, 74 patients who experienced IPR (2.26%) were analyzed. Fifty-five patients (3.36%) experienced IPR among 1636 EVT cases for ruptured aneurysms. Multivariate analysis revealed that increased hemorrhage was significantly associated with poor outcomes (odds ratio [OR], 6.37 [95% CI, 1.00-40.51], P = .050), whereas ischemic lesions were not. Regarding management techniques of IPR, antihypertensive medication use was significantly associated with increased hemorrhage (OR, 14.16 [95% CI, 2.35-85.34], P = .004). Heparin reversal was an independent factor for ischemic lesions (OR, 8.92 [95% CI, 1.54-51.58], P = .014). Although the setting of IPR may be miscellaneous, and optimal management varies depending on individual cases, heparin reversal might be associated with ischemic complications, and its role in the successful hemostasis in IPR during EVT for ruptured aneurysms remains unclear.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Although intraprocedural rupture (IPR) is rare, it is a devastating complication of endovascular treatment (EVT) for intracranial aneurysms. Very few studies have been conducted on IPR, and the safety and efficacy of management techniques of IPR have not been investigated.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients who experienced IPR during EVT between 2013 and 2022 were enrolled from a multicenter observational registry. We examined the safety and efficacy of the management of IPR using imaging markers, including increased hemorrhage and ischemic lesions, which were evaluated using postoperative computed tomography and diffusion-weighted imaging, respectively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 3269 EVTs for intracranial aneurysms, 74 patients who experienced IPR (2.26%) were analyzed. Fifty-five patients (3.36%) experienced IPR among 1636 EVT cases for ruptured aneurysms. Multivariate analysis revealed that increased hemorrhage was significantly associated with poor outcomes (odds ratio [OR], 6.37 [95% CI, 1.00-40.51], P = .050), whereas ischemic lesions were not. Regarding management techniques of IPR, antihypertensive medication use was significantly associated with increased hemorrhage (OR, 14.16 [95% CI, 2.35-85.34], P = .004). Heparin reversal was an independent factor for ischemic lesions (OR, 8.92 [95% CI, 1.54-51.58], P = .014).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Although the setting of IPR may be miscellaneous, and optimal management varies depending on individual cases, heparin reversal might be associated with ischemic complications, and its role in the successful hemostasis in IPR during EVT for ruptured aneurysms remains unclear.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39087778
doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000003126
pii: 00006123-990000000-01299
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2024. All rights reserved.
Références
Cloft HJ, Kallmes DF. Cerebral aneurysm perforations complicating therapy with Guglielmi detachable coils: a meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002;23(10):1706-1709.
Elijovich L, Higashida RT, Lawton MT, et al. Predictors and outcomes of intraprocedural rupture in patients treated for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: the CARAT study. Stroke. 2008;39(5):1501-1506.
Santillan A, Gobin YP, Greenberg ED, et al. Intraprocedural aneurysmal rupture during coil embolization of brain aneurysms: role of balloon-assisted coiling. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33(10):2017-2021.
Zheng Y, Liu Y, Leng B, Xu F, Tian Y. Periprocedural complications associated with endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms in 1764 cases. J Neurointerv Surg. 2016;8(2):152-157.
Cho SH, Denewer M, Park W, et al. Intraprocedural rupture of unruptured cerebral aneurysms during coil embolization: a single-center experience. World Neurosurg. 2017;105:177-183.
Yamagami K, Hatano T, Nakahara I, et al. Long-term outcomes after intraprocedural aneurysm rupture during coil embolization of unruptured intracranial aneurysms. World Neurosurg. 2020;134:e289-e297.
Fan L, Lin B, Xu T, et al. Predicting intraprocedural rupture and thrombus formation during coiling of ruptured anterior communicating artery aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg. 2017;9(4):370-375.
Kunz M, Bakhshai Y, Zausinger S, et al. Interdisciplinary treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: impact of intraprocedural rupture and ischemia in 563 aneurysms. J Neurol. 2013;260(5):1304-1313.
Sluzewski M, Bosch JA, van Rooij WJ, Nijssen PC, Wijnalda D. Rupture of intracranial aneurysms during treatment with Guglielmi detachable coils: incidence, outcome, and risk factors. J Neurosurg. 2001;94(2):238-240.
Li MH, Gao BL, Fang C, et al. Prevention and management of intraprocedural rupture of intracranial aneurysm with detachable coils during embolization. Neuroradiology. 2006;48(12):907-915.
Doerfler A, Wanke I, Egelhof T, et al. Aneurysmal rupture during embolization with Guglielmi detachable coils: causes, management, and outcome. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22(10):1825-1832.
Report of World Federation of Neurological Surgeons Committee on a Universal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Grading Scale. J Neurosurg. 1988;68(6):985-986.
Raymond J, Guilbert F, Weill A, et al. Long-term angiographic recurrences after selective endovascular treatment of aneurysms with detachable coils. Stroke. 2003;34(6):1398-1403.
Lowe SR, Bhalla T, Tillman H, et al. A comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging abnormalities following balloon remodeling for aneurysm coil embolization in the ruptured vs unruptured setting. Neurosurgery. 2018;82(4):516-524.
Park JC, Lee DH, Kim JK, et al. Microembolism after endovascular coiling of unruptured cerebral aneurysms: incidence and risk factors. J Neurosurg. 2016;124(3):777-783.
Lim Fat MJ, Al-Hazzaa M, Bussière M, dos Santos MP, Lesiuk H, Lum C. Heparin dosing is associated with diffusion weighted imaging lesion load following aneurysm coiling. J Neurointerv Surg. 2013;5(4):366-370.
Wilson DA, Nakaji P, Albuquerque FC, McDougall CG, Zabramski JM, Spetzler RF. Time course of recovery following poor-grade SAH: the incidence of delayed improvement and implications for SAH outcome study design. J Neurosurg. 2013;119(3):606-612.
Stapleton CJ, Walcott BP, Butler WE, Ogilvy CS. Neurological outcomes following intraprocedural rerupture during coil embolization of ruptured intracranial aneurysms. J Neurosurg. 2015;122(1):128-135.
Komiyama M, Tamura K, Nagata Y, Fu Y, Yagura H, Yasui T. Aneurysmal rupture during angiography. Neurosurgery. 1993;33(5):798-803.
Sluzewski M, van Rooij WJ. Early rebleeding after coiling of ruptured cerebral aneurysms: incidence, morbidity, and risk factors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26(7):1739-1743.
Lauridsen SV, Hvas CL, Sandgaard E, et al. Thromboelastometry shows early hypercoagulation in patients with spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage. World Neurosurg. 2019;130:e140-e149.
Li K, Guo Y, Zhao Y, Xu B, Xu K, Yu J. Acute rerupture after coil embolization of ruptured intracranial saccular aneurysms: a literature review. Interv Neuroradiol. 2018;24(2):117-124.
Bond KM, Brinjikji W, Murad MH, Kallmes DF, Cloft HJ, Lanzino G. Diffusion-weighted imaging-detected ischemic lesions following endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017;38(2):304-309.
Fukuda H, Handa A, Koyanagi M, Lo B, Yamagata S. Association of plasma D-dimer level with thromboembolic events after endovascular coil treatment of ruptured cerebral aneurysms. J Neurosurg. 2018;130(2):509-516.
Juvela S, Siironen J. D-dimer as an independent predictor for poor outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke. 2006;37(6):1451-1456.
Kang DH, Kim BM, Kim DJ, et al. MR-DWI-positive lesions and symptomatic ischemic complications after coiling of unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Stroke. 2013;44(3):789-791.
Dhakal P, Rayamajhi S, Verma V, Gundabolu K, Bhatt VR. Reversal of anticoagulation and management of bleeding in patients on anticoagulants. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2017;23(5):410-415.
Horrow JC. Protamine: a review of its toxicity. Anesth Analg. 1985;64(3):348-361.