Treatment of non-saccular aneurysms of the posterior circulation poses a great challenge with unpredictable outcomes due to the absence of a true aneurysm neck and the presence of perforating vessels. In this article, we aim to compare endovascular treatment of unruptured posterior circulation non-saccular aneurysms with stent-assisted coiling (SAC) and flow diversion (FD) in terms of occlusion rate and clinical outcomes. A systematic search of electronic databases from inception to August 2019 identified 484 articles for screening. After proper inclusion/exclusion criteria, 15 articles were included and data were extracted and analyzed using meta-analysis of proportions. The pooled cohort consisted of 430 aneurysms: 128 (29.7%) treated with SAC in 5 studies and 302 (70.3%) treated with FD in 11 studies. Complete/near-complete occlusion was achieved in 83% after FD (95% CI 0.75 to 0.90; I2=45%) and 84% after SAC (95% CI 0.72 to 0.91; I2=22%), with no significant difference between techniques (p=0.95). Periprocedural complications were observed in 18% after FD (95% CI 0.14 to 0.23; I2=0%) and 6% after SAC (95% CI 0.02 to 0.13; I2=0%); the subgroup analysis was statistically significant (p=0.008). Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was observed in favorable clinical outcomes between groups. These results suggest similar efficacy in occlusion rate and favorable clinical outcome for posterior circulation non-saccular aneurysms treated with SAC and FD. Stroke was the most common complication regardless of treatment modality, and a lower periprocedural complication rate was noted with SAC. Further studies are needed with the primary focus of reducing the risk of stroke with either modality.
- flow diverter
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Contributors All clinical investigators involved met the criteria for authorship. RAD: planning, conduct, reporting, conception and design, acquisition of data and interpretation of data. ST: planning, conduct, conception and design, analysis of the data and interpretation of the data. CP-V: conduct, conception, acquisition of data. TV-B: interpretation of data, conception, critical review. VML: analysis of the data and interpretation of the data, critical review. NDT: supervision, critical review. AQ-H: supervision, critical review. RGT: planning, conduct, reporting, conception and design, interpretation of data, supervision, critical review.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.