治疗颅内动脉瘤的管道栓塞装置(带线圈和不带线圈)的临床效果:系统回顾与元分析》。

Irfan Kesumayadi, Makoto Sakamoto, Tomohiro Hosoya, Atsushi Kambe, Tetsuji Uno, Hiroki Yoshioka, Masamichi Kurosaki
{"title":"治疗颅内动脉瘤的管道栓塞装置(带线圈和不带线圈)的临床效果:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Irfan Kesumayadi, Makoto Sakamoto, Tomohiro Hosoya, Atsushi Kambe, Tetsuji Uno, Hiroki Yoshioka, Masamichi Kurosaki","doi":"10.3174/ajnr.A8443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of a Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) in combination with coils (PEDC) to treat intracranial aneurysms remains unclear as to whether it offers significant benefits for the patients since the results have varied.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcome of PEDC compared to PED in treating intracranial aneurysms.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We systematically searched the articles from PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases published before January 25, 2024.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>We selected studies comparing PEDC vs. PED to treat intracranial aneurysms. Patients treated with PEDC but using dense coiling were excluded from the study.</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>The clinical outcomes observed in this meta-analysis were intraprocedural complications, postoperative complications (stenosis, stroke, hemorrhage, mortality), favorable outcome (mRS ≤ 2), complete occlusion rate, and retreatment rate. Forest plot was used to analyze pooled Odds Ratio (OR) of clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>A total of 3001 subjects from nine observational studies were included. PEDC was mainly used to treat larger aneurysms. PEDC has a significantly higher complete occlusion rate at 6 months [OR= 2.66, 95% CI(1.26, 5.59), p= 0.01], a lower retreatment rate [OR= 0.18, 95% CI(0.05, 0.07), p= 0.010], higher stroke-related complications [OR= 1.66, 95% CI(1.16, 2.37), p= 0.005], and higher hemorrhage-related complications [OR= 1.98, 95% CI(1.22, 3.21), p = 0.005]. There was no significant difference in intraprocedural complications, stenosis-related complications, mortality, favorable outcomes, and complete occlusion at the end of the study.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>No randomized controlled trials have been performed comparing PEDC and PED. Considering that all the included studies were observational, the patients' baseline characteristics were not completely balanced.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This meta-analysis study showed that PEDC in large intracranial aneurysms induces a faster complete occlusion rate at 6 months and a lower retreatment rate. However, it increases the risk of stroke-related postoperative complications, and the faster complete aneurysm occlusion rate found in this study did not correlate with a reduction in long-term aneurysm or distal artery ruptures. Thus, this study suggests the need to find a better strategy to improve long-term hemorrhage-related complications in large intracranial aneurysms.</p><p><strong>Abbreviations: </strong>F = female; FDDs = flow-diverter devices; M = male; NOS = Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; PED = pipeline embolization device; PEDC = pipeline embolization device in combination with coils.</p>","PeriodicalId":93863,"journal":{"name":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Outcome of Pipeline Embolization Device with and without Coil to Treat Intracranial Aneurysm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Irfan Kesumayadi, Makoto Sakamoto, Tomohiro Hosoya, Atsushi Kambe, Tetsuji Uno, Hiroki Yoshioka, Masamichi Kurosaki\",\"doi\":\"10.3174/ajnr.A8443\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of a Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) in combination with coils (PEDC) to treat intracranial aneurysms remains unclear as to whether it offers significant benefits for the patients since the results have varied.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcome of PEDC compared to PED in treating intracranial aneurysms.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We systematically searched the articles from PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases published before January 25, 2024.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>We selected studies comparing PEDC vs. PED to treat intracranial aneurysms. Patients treated with PEDC but using dense coiling were excluded from the study.</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>The clinical outcomes observed in this meta-analysis were intraprocedural complications, postoperative complications (stenosis, stroke, hemorrhage, mortality), favorable outcome (mRS ≤ 2), complete occlusion rate, and retreatment rate. Forest plot was used to analyze pooled Odds Ratio (OR) of clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>A total of 3001 subjects from nine observational studies were included. PEDC was mainly used to treat larger aneurysms. PEDC has a significantly higher complete occlusion rate at 6 months [OR= 2.66, 95% CI(1.26, 5.59), p= 0.01], a lower retreatment rate [OR= 0.18, 95% CI(0.05, 0.07), p= 0.010], higher stroke-related complications [OR= 1.66, 95% CI(1.16, 2.37), p= 0.005], and higher hemorrhage-related complications [OR= 1.98, 95% CI(1.22, 3.21), p = 0.005]. There was no significant difference in intraprocedural complications, stenosis-related complications, mortality, favorable outcomes, and complete occlusion at the end of the study.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>No randomized controlled trials have been performed comparing PEDC and PED. Considering that all the included studies were observational, the patients' baseline characteristics were not completely balanced.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This meta-analysis study showed that PEDC in large intracranial aneurysms induces a faster complete occlusion rate at 6 months and a lower retreatment rate. However, it increases the risk of stroke-related postoperative complications, and the faster complete aneurysm occlusion rate found in this study did not correlate with a reduction in long-term aneurysm or distal artery ruptures. Thus, this study suggests the need to find a better strategy to improve long-term hemorrhage-related complications in large intracranial aneurysms.</p><p><strong>Abbreviations: </strong>F = female; FDDs = flow-diverter devices; M = male; NOS = Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; PED = pipeline embolization device; PEDC = pipeline embolization device in combination with coils.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93863,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8443\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:使用管道栓塞装置(PED)结合线圈(PEDC)治疗颅内动脉瘤的结果各不相同,因此是否能为患者带来明显的益处仍不清楚。目的:本研究旨在调查 PEDC 与 PED 相比治疗颅内动脉瘤的临床效果:我们从 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Library 数据库中系统检索了 2024 年 1 月 25 日之前发表的文章:我们选择了比较 PEDC 与 PED 治疗颅内动脉瘤的研究。数据分析:荟萃分析中观察到的临床结果包括术中并发症、术后并发症(狭窄、中风、出血、死亡率)、良好预后(mRS ≤ 2)、完全闭塞率和再治疗率。数据综合:数据综述:共纳入九项观察性研究中的 3001 例受试者。PEDC主要用于治疗较大的动脉瘤。PEDC 6 个月完全闭塞率明显更高[OR= 2.66,95% CI(1.26,5.59),P= 0.01],再治疗率更低[OR= 0.18,95% CI(0.05,0.07),P= 0.010],中风相关并发症较高[OR= 1.66,95% CI(1.16,2.37),p= 0.005],出血相关并发症较高[OR= 1.98,95% CI(1.22,3.21),p= 0.005]。在术中并发症、狭窄相关并发症、死亡率、良好预后和研究结束时完全闭塞方面没有明显差异:局限性:目前还没有比较 PEDC 和 PED 的随机对照试验。考虑到所有纳入的研究都是观察性的,患者的基线特征并不完全平衡:这项荟萃分析研究表明,对大型颅内动脉瘤进行 PEDC 治疗,6 个月后的完全闭塞率更快,再治疗率更低。然而,它增加了中风相关术后并发症的风险,而且本研究中发现的动脉瘤更快完全闭塞率与长期动脉瘤或远端动脉破裂的减少并不相关。因此,这项研究表明需要找到更好的策略来改善大型颅内动脉瘤的长期出血相关并发症:缩写:F = 女性;FDDs = 分流装置;M = 男性;NOS = 纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表;PED = 管道栓塞装置;PEDC = 结合线圈的管道栓塞装置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Clinical Outcome of Pipeline Embolization Device with and without Coil to Treat Intracranial Aneurysm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The use of a Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) in combination with coils (PEDC) to treat intracranial aneurysms remains unclear as to whether it offers significant benefits for the patients since the results have varied.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcome of PEDC compared to PED in treating intracranial aneurysms.

Data sources: We systematically searched the articles from PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases published before January 25, 2024.

Study selection: We selected studies comparing PEDC vs. PED to treat intracranial aneurysms. Patients treated with PEDC but using dense coiling were excluded from the study.

Data analysis: The clinical outcomes observed in this meta-analysis were intraprocedural complications, postoperative complications (stenosis, stroke, hemorrhage, mortality), favorable outcome (mRS ≤ 2), complete occlusion rate, and retreatment rate. Forest plot was used to analyze pooled Odds Ratio (OR) of clinical outcomes.

Data synthesis: A total of 3001 subjects from nine observational studies were included. PEDC was mainly used to treat larger aneurysms. PEDC has a significantly higher complete occlusion rate at 6 months [OR= 2.66, 95% CI(1.26, 5.59), p= 0.01], a lower retreatment rate [OR= 0.18, 95% CI(0.05, 0.07), p= 0.010], higher stroke-related complications [OR= 1.66, 95% CI(1.16, 2.37), p= 0.005], and higher hemorrhage-related complications [OR= 1.98, 95% CI(1.22, 3.21), p = 0.005]. There was no significant difference in intraprocedural complications, stenosis-related complications, mortality, favorable outcomes, and complete occlusion at the end of the study.

Limitations: No randomized controlled trials have been performed comparing PEDC and PED. Considering that all the included studies were observational, the patients' baseline characteristics were not completely balanced.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis study showed that PEDC in large intracranial aneurysms induces a faster complete occlusion rate at 6 months and a lower retreatment rate. However, it increases the risk of stroke-related postoperative complications, and the faster complete aneurysm occlusion rate found in this study did not correlate with a reduction in long-term aneurysm or distal artery ruptures. Thus, this study suggests the need to find a better strategy to improve long-term hemorrhage-related complications in large intracranial aneurysms.

Abbreviations: F = female; FDDs = flow-diverter devices; M = male; NOS = Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; PED = pipeline embolization device; PEDC = pipeline embolization device in combination with coils.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Quantification of Infarct Core Volume in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke Using Cerebral Metabolic Rate of Oxygen in CT Perfusion. Cerebrovascular Anomalies in the Fetus. Imaging Findings in Giant Cell Arteritis: Don't Turn a Blind Eye to the Obvious! An Extended Follow-up of Spinal Instrumentation Rescue with Cement Augmentation. Prevalence of Rathke Cleft and Other Incidental Pituitary Gland Findings on Contrast-Enhanced 3D Fat-Saturated T1 MPRAGE at 7T MRI.
×
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