Clipping Versus Coiling for Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms
Hui Li,Rui Pan,Hongxuan Wang,Xiaoming Rong,Zi Yin,Daniel P. Milgrom,Xiaolei Shi,Yamei Tang,Ying Peng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.112.663559
IF: 10.17
2012-01-01
Stroke
Abstract:In the past, neurosurgical clipping of the aneurysmal neck was the only effective method to prevent rebleeding of subarachnoid aneurismal hemorrhage (SAH). In 1990, a detachable platinum coil device, the Guglielmi detachable coil, was first introduced in clinical practice. Since that time, coiling has gained worldwide acceptance as an alternative treatment. The International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) was the only large, multicenter, randomized clinical trial that compared neurosurgical clipping with detachable platinum coils in patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms, who were considered to be suitable for either treatment. However, results of ISAT have continued to generate some criticism, mainly because of its selection bias. For the 9559 patients screened, 7416 were excluded because of a strict contraindication for either operation type. Of the enrolled patients, 88% had a favorable grade (WFNS classification I or II) at the time of enrolment, 95% of the aneurysms were in the anterior cerebral circulation, and 90% were smaller than 10 mm. The question has arisen: ISAT was designed as a pragmatic trial, but can we generalize the results of a study where >80% of the patients were excluded to the entire body of patients with aneurismal SAH? In recent years, coiling is being offered to patients who were not suitable for inclusion in ISAT. More randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as prospective and retrospective studies have since been published, some of which have results that differ from ISAT. The Cochrane review on this topic only included 3 RCTs and the results were principally those of ISAT, which was clearly the largest trial. As a result, it is still uncertain how coiling compares with the accepted standard treatment. It is therefore the aim of this systematic review and Background and Purpose—Endovascular treatment has increasingly been used for aneurismal subarachnoid aneurismal hemorrhage. The aim of this analysis is to assess the current evidence regarding safety and efficiency of clipping compared with coiling. Methods—We conducted a meta-analysis of studies that compared clipping with coiling between January 1999 and July 2012. Comparison of binary outcomes between treatment groups was described using odds ratios (OR; clip versus coil). Results—Four randomized controlled trials and 23 observational studies were included. Randomized controlled trials showed that coiling reduced the 1-year unfavorable outcome rate (OR, 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24–1.76). However, there was no statistical deference in nonrandomized controlled trials (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.96–1.28). Subgroup analysis revealed coiling yielded better outcomes for patients with good preoperative grade (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24–1.84) than for poor preoperative patients (OR, 0.88; 95% CI 0.56–1.38). Additionally, the incidence of rebleeding is higher after coiling (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.28–0.66), corresponding to a better complete occlusion rate of clipping (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.88–3.13). The 1-year mortality showed no significant difference (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88–1.30). Vasospasm was more common after clipping (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.07–1.91), whereas the ischemic infarct (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.52–1.06), shunt-dependent hydrocephalus (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66–1.07), and procedural complication rates (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.67–2.11) did not differ significantly between techniques. Conclusions—Coiling yields a better clinical outcome, the benefit being greater in those with a good preoperative grade than those with a poor preoperative grade. However, coiling leads to a greater risk of rebleeding. Well-designed randomized trials with special considerations to the aspect are needed. (Stroke. 2013;44:00-00.)