Background Stent-assisted coiling is commonly used to treat wide-necked and fusiform cerebral aneurysms. We evaluated our institutional experience with stent-assisted coiling of cerebral aneurysms to elucidate potential risk factors for recurrence.
Methods A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing stent-assisted coiling of cerebral aneurysms from 2005 to 2012 resulted in 122 patients with 122 aneurysms. Demographic, peri-procedural, medical comorbidity, and follow-up data were collected. Primary outcomes of interest were procedural safety, efficacy, and aneurysm recurrence. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression and χ2 tests determined the statistical significance of the risk factors.
Results All 122 stent-assisted coiling procedures led to satisfactory obliteration of the aneurysm (3.3% complication rate). Twenty-one (17.2%) patients experienced recurrence at average follow-up of 297 days. Fifteen (71.4%) clinically significant recurrences required retreatment. Eleven of 30 (36.7%) procedures using Enterprise stents had recurrence compared with only 10 of 92 (10.9%) procedures using Neuroform stents (p=0.001). Average coiling packing density (PD) was 20.3% with Enterprise stents and 22.5% with Neuroform stents (p=0.8). In multivariate logistic regression, recurrences requiring recoiling were significantly associated with Enterprise stents (OR 8.57, 95% CI 1.97 to 37.19; p=0.004), females (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.00; p=0.05), and postoperative dextran use (OR 8.42, 95% CI 1.40 to 50.58; p=0.02). Aneurysms with <20% PD were more likely to have a clinically significant recurrence than aneurysms with >20% PD (19% vs 5.1%; p=0.02).
Conclusions Stent-assisted coiling for wide-necked cerebral aneurysms has a high therapeutic success rate with low procedure-related morbidity and mortality. Clinically significant recurrences may occur more frequently with Enterprise stents, in aneurysms with low PD, and with post-procedural dextran use.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors All authors contributed to writing, data gathering, data analysis, manuscript review, and approval for submission.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.