Background Basilar artery (BA) trunk aneurysms are rare, and the clinical characteristics and outcomes of endovascular treatment (EVT) remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to report clinical and angiographic outcomes of BA trunk aneurysm treated with EVT and to analyze risk factors for unfavorable outcomes.
Methods From October 2004 to December 2020, a total of 40 patients with BA trunk aneurysms underwent EVT. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were evaluated retrospectively from a prospectively collected database. Of the 40 enrolled patients, nine were treated by coiling without stents, 17 were treated by stent-assisted coiling, six by stent only, five by flow diverters, and three by vertebral artery occlusion.
Results In total, 27 (67.5%) patients had subarachnoid hemorrhage as an initial presentation, and 20 (50.0%) had large/giant aneurysms. Procedure-related complications occurred in five patients (12.5%); favorable clinical outcome was achieved in 27 patients (67.5%); and six patients (15.0%) died. Favorable angiographic outcome was achieved in 26 (83.9%) of 31 patients who underwent follow-up angiography. Poor initial Hunt-and-Hess grade (OR 7.67, 95% CI 1.55 to 37.80; p=0.018) was the only independent risk factor for unfavorable clinical outcome. Large/giant aneurysm (OR 8.14, 95% CI 1.88 to 27.46; p=0.047) and long lesion (OR 14.25, 95% CI 1.48 to 69.80; p=0.013) were independent risk factors for unfavorable angiographic outcomes during follow-up.
Conclusions EVT might be a feasible option for this rare disease entity. Unfavorable angiographic outcome might be expected in a large/giant aneurysm or a long lesion. It can be difficult to treat BA trunk aneurysms by EVT, needing multiple procedures or various techniques due to diverse clinical and angiographic features.
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.
JC and YCL contributed equally.
Contributors Substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work: JC and YCL. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data for the work: SYS, JC, JHC, MJK, YSS, and YCL. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content: SYS, JC, JHC, MJK, YSS, and YCL. Final approval of the version to be published: SYS, JC, JHC, MJK, YSS, and YCL. Agreement 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: SYS, JC, JHC, MJK, YSS, and YCL.
Funding This work was supported by (a Grant from Research Year of Inje University) grant number [20 170 109].
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.