Abstract Number ‐ 126: Use of Woven EndoBridge device for Aneurysms in Off‐Labeled Locations: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

IF 2.1 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1161/svin.03.suppl_1.126
A. Rodriguez-Calienes, J. Vivanco-Suarez, M. Galecio-Castillo, M. Malaga, Cynthia B. Zevallos, M. Farooqui, C. Morán-Mariños, N. Fanning, O. Algın, B. Pabon, N. Mouchtouris, P. Jabbour, S. Ortega‐Gutierrez
{"title":"Abstract Number ‐ 126: Use of Woven EndoBridge device for Aneurysms in Off‐Labeled Locations: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis","authors":"A. Rodriguez-Calienes, J. Vivanco-Suarez, M. Galecio-Castillo, M. Malaga, Cynthia B. Zevallos, M. Farooqui, C. Morán-Mariños, N. Fanning, O. Algın, B. Pabon, N. Mouchtouris, P. Jabbour, S. Ortega‐Gutierrez","doi":"10.1161/svin.03.suppl_1.126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n The Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device was originally approved to treat intracranial wide‐necked saccular bifurcation aneurysms. Recent studies have suggested its use for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms (IA) in alternative locations with variable success. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the WEB for IAs in off‐labeled locations using a meta‐analysis (MA) of the literature.\n \n \n \n We performed a systematic review of all studies including patients treated with WEB for IAs in locations different than what is currently on‐label FDA until May 2022. Our primary efficacy and safety outcomes were adequate occlusion at last follow up and a composite of intraprocedural and postprocedural complications, respectively. The Raymond‐Roy (RR) scale and the Bicêtre Occlusion Scale Score (BOSS) were used to define complete (RR: 1; BOSS: 0‐0’) and adequate (RR:1‐2; BOSS: 0–2) occlusion. Additional safety outcomes included intraprocedural (thromboembolic, hemorrhagic, device deployment, or air embolism) and postprocedural (ischemic or hemorrhagic) complications, and mortality. We performed a random‐effects MA of proportions and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Statistical heterogeneity across studies was assessed with I2 statistics. Logistic regression of the patient level data was used to study the predictors of complete occlusion.\n \n \n \n Ten studies were selected, and 285 patients (79% female; mean age 58 years) with 288 aneurysms (35% ruptured) were included. Adequate and complete occlusion rates were 89% (95% CI 81–94%; I2 = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence) and 64% (95% CI 57–70%; I2 = 13%; moderate‐certainty evidence), respectively. The composite safety outcome rate was 8% (95% CI 3–17%; I2 = 34%; very low‐certainty evidence). The intraprocedural and postprocedural complication rates were 6% (95% CI 4–10%; I2 = 0%; very low‐certainty evidence) and 1% (95% CI 0–1%; I2 = 33%; very low‐certainty evidence), respectively. The mortality rate was 2% (95% CI 1–7%; I2 = 0%; very low‐certainty evidence). Aneurysm width (OR = 0.5; p = 0.03) was the only significant predictor of complete occlusion.\n \n \n \n The preliminary studies evaluating the use of WEB for the treatment of IAs in off‐labeled locations has demonstrated rates of adequate occlusion and procedural complications comparable to the landmark studies that evaluated the use of the WEB for on‐label bifurcation aneurysms. Given the level of evidence, we consider the interpretation of our results should be done cautiously until confirmation from larger prospective studies are obtained.\n","PeriodicalId":74875,"journal":{"name":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.03.suppl_1.126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device was originally approved to treat intracranial wide‐necked saccular bifurcation aneurysms. Recent studies have suggested its use for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms (IA) in alternative locations with variable success. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the WEB for IAs in off‐labeled locations using a meta‐analysis (MA) of the literature. We performed a systematic review of all studies including patients treated with WEB for IAs in locations different than what is currently on‐label FDA until May 2022. Our primary efficacy and safety outcomes were adequate occlusion at last follow up and a composite of intraprocedural and postprocedural complications, respectively. The Raymond‐Roy (RR) scale and the Bicêtre Occlusion Scale Score (BOSS) were used to define complete (RR: 1; BOSS: 0‐0’) and adequate (RR:1‐2; BOSS: 0–2) occlusion. Additional safety outcomes included intraprocedural (thromboembolic, hemorrhagic, device deployment, or air embolism) and postprocedural (ischemic or hemorrhagic) complications, and mortality. We performed a random‐effects MA of proportions and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Statistical heterogeneity across studies was assessed with I2 statistics. Logistic regression of the patient level data was used to study the predictors of complete occlusion. Ten studies were selected, and 285 patients (79% female; mean age 58 years) with 288 aneurysms (35% ruptured) were included. Adequate and complete occlusion rates were 89% (95% CI 81–94%; I2 = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence) and 64% (95% CI 57–70%; I2 = 13%; moderate‐certainty evidence), respectively. The composite safety outcome rate was 8% (95% CI 3–17%; I2 = 34%; very low‐certainty evidence). The intraprocedural and postprocedural complication rates were 6% (95% CI 4–10%; I2 = 0%; very low‐certainty evidence) and 1% (95% CI 0–1%; I2 = 33%; very low‐certainty evidence), respectively. The mortality rate was 2% (95% CI 1–7%; I2 = 0%; very low‐certainty evidence). Aneurysm width (OR = 0.5; p = 0.03) was the only significant predictor of complete occlusion. The preliminary studies evaluating the use of WEB for the treatment of IAs in off‐labeled locations has demonstrated rates of adequate occlusion and procedural complications comparable to the landmark studies that evaluated the use of the WEB for on‐label bifurcation aneurysms. Given the level of evidence, we consider the interpretation of our results should be done cautiously until confirmation from larger prospective studies are obtained.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
摘要编号126:在未标记位置使用编织内桥装置治疗动脉瘤:系统评价和Meta分析
Woven EndoBridge (WEB)装置最初被批准用于治疗颅内宽颈囊状分叉动脉瘤。最近的研究表明,它用于治疗颅内动脉瘤(IA)在不同的位置有不同的成功。我们的目的是通过文献荟萃分析(MA)来评估WEB治疗非标签部位IAs的安全性和有效性。截至2022年5月,我们对所有研究进行了系统回顾,包括在不同地点接受WEB治疗的IAs患者,而不是目前FDA的标签。我们的主要疗效和安全性结果分别是充分的闭塞和术中及术后并发症的综合。使用Raymond‐Roy (RR)量表和Bicêtre闭塞量表评分(BOSS)来定义完全性(RR: 1;BOSS: 0‐0 ')和充足(RR:1‐2;BOSS: 0-2)遮挡。其他安全性结果包括术中(血栓栓塞、出血、器械部署或空气栓塞)和术后(缺血性或出血)并发症和死亡率。我们进行了随机效应MA比例分析,并使用GRADE方法评估了证据的确定性。采用I2统计评估各研究的统计异质性。采用患者水平数据的逻辑回归来研究完全闭塞的预测因素。10项研究入选,285例患者(79%为女性;平均年龄58岁,288个动脉瘤(35%破裂)。充分和完全的闭塞率为89% (95% CI 81-94%;i2 = 0%;中等确定性证据)和64% (95% CI 57-70%;i2 = 13%;中等确定性证据)。复合安全转归率为8% (95% CI 3-17%;i2 = 34%;极低确定性证据)。术中及术后并发症发生率为6% (95% CI 4-10%;i2 = 0%;极低确定性证据)和1% (95% CI 0-1%;i2 = 33%;极低确定性证据)。死亡率为2% (95% CI 1-7%;i2 = 0%;极低确定性证据)。动脉瘤宽度(OR = 0.5;P = 0.03)是完全闭塞的唯一显著预测因子。评估使用WEB治疗未标记位置的IAs的初步研究表明,充分闭塞和程序性并发症的发生率与评估使用WEB治疗未标记位置的分支动脉瘤的里程碑式研究相当。鉴于证据的水平,我们认为在获得更大规模的前瞻性研究的证实之前,我们的结果的解释应该谨慎进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Endovascular Therapy Effectiveness for Unruptured Saccular Intracranial Aneurysms. Large, Wide-Neck, Side-Wall Aneurysm Treatment in Canines Using NeuroCURE: A Novel Liquid Embolic. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual CLOTS Meeting: CLOTS 7.0, Madrid, Spain Catching Up With Time: Endovascular Treatment Beyond 24 Hours Can Aneurysm Wall Radiomics Help Predict Rupture Risk?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1