Background The impact of various stents on patients with intracranial aneurysms who undergo stent-assisted coiling has been debated. We conducted this study to compare follow-up outcomes of coiling procedures involving braided or laser-cut stents with closed-cell design. A propensity score-matched case-controlled analysis was applied.
Methods A total of 413 intracranial aneurysms consecutively coiled using laser-cut (n=245) or braided stents (n=168) in procedures performed between September 2012 and June 2017 were eligible for study. Time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography, catheter angiography, or both were used to gauge occlusive status after coiling. Recanalization was determined by Raymond classification (complete occlusion vs recanalization). A propensity score-matched analysis was conducted, based on probability of stent type in use.
Results Ultimately, 93 coiled aneurysms (22.5%) showed some recanalization (minor, 51; major, 42) during the follow-up period (mean 21.7±14.5 months). Patient gender (P=0.042), hyperlipidemia (P=0.015), size of aneurysm (P=0.004), neck size (P<0.001), type of aneurysm (P<0.001), and packing density (P=0.024) differed significantly by group. Midterm and cumulative recanalization incidence rates in the braided-stent group were initially lower than those of the laser-cut stent group (P=0.009 and P=0.037, respectively) but they did not differ significantly after 1:1 propensity score matching (midterm OR=0.88, P=0.724; cumulative HR=0.91, P=0.758).
Conclusion In stent-assisted coiling of intracranial aneurysms, laser-cut and braided stent groups produced similar outcomes in follow-up. Consequently, product selection may hinge on suitability for deployment rather than anticipated results.
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors YDC: study design, data interpretation, statistical analysis, drafting the manuscript, and critical revision of the manuscript. JWL: data collection, data analysis, and manuscript drafting. JL, NH, DHY, H-SK: data collection and critical revision of the manuscript.
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.
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.