Background/objective The optimal management of residual or recurrent clipped aneurysms is infrequently addressed in the literature.
Methods We reviewed our endovascular database from January 1998 to May 2016 to identify patients with clipped aneurysms undergoing subsequent endovascular treatment, evaluating treatment approach, and clinical and angiographic outcomes.
Results 60 patients underwent endovascular treatment of residual/recurrent clipped aneurysms; 7 rebled prior to endovascular therapy. Treatment was via coiling alone (n=25, 42%), stent assisted coiling (n=15, 25%), balloon assisted coiling (n=8, 13%), flow diversion (n=8, 13%), stenting alone (n=3, 5%), or flow diversion with coiling (n=1, 2%). The procedural permanent neurological morbidity and mortality rates were 3% and 2%, respectively. Over a clinical follow-up of 253.4 patient years (median 3.9 years), there was one rebleed in a patient who had declined further treatment. For 43 patients with at least 1 month of digital subtraction angiographic follow-up (median 3.4 years), complete aneurysm occlusion was seen in 79% of cases. Neck remnants were observed in 14%, and stable small dome remnants were observed in 7% of cases. In a subgroup of 18 patients with ‘clip induced’ narrow neck aneurysms, all domes were initially coil occluded (Raymond 1 or 2); there was no permanent procedural morbidity and no aneurysms required retreatment or recanalized over a median follow-up of 3.9 years.
Conclusions Endovascular treatment of residual or recurrent clipped aneurysms is an excellent treatment approach in well selected patients; ‘clip induced’ narrow neck aneurysms fare particularly well after treatment both angiographically and clinically.
- Flow Diverter
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors Conception and design: BAG, FCA, and CGM. Drafting the article: BAG. Data acquisition: BAG. Interpretation and analysis: BAG, FCA, KM, AFD, and CGM. Critically revised the article: BAG, FCA, KM, AFD, and CGM. Study supervision: FCA and CGM. The authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Competing interests None declared.
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.