Study information and normalized reductions relative to the untreated condition of hemodynamic parameters summarized from studies included in the meta-analysis and systematic review for differences between successfully and unsuccessfully treated cases
| Author, year | No. of IAs | No. of Succ. | IA location | IA type | AR (SD) | Criterion | FD stent model | Virtual stenting technique | IR reduction (SD) | AAV reduction (SD) | ||||
| S | U | P value | S | U | P value | |||||||||
| Paliwal et al,8 2018 | 84 | 63 | ICA | SW | 0.98 (0.17) | CO @6mo | PED | Paliwal et al 33, | 0.39 (0.01) | 0.59 (0.03) | <0.00* | 0.29 (0.01) | 0.48 (0.04) | <0.00* |
| Paliwal et al,16 2017 | 15 | 10 | — | SW | — | CO @12mo | PED | Paliwal et al 33 | 0.60 (0.03) | 0.66 (0.10) | 0.1 | 0.48 (0.03) | 0.51 (0.09) | 0.34 |
| Mut et al,13 2014 | 23 | 15 | 1 ACOM, 7 ICA (OPH), 10 ICA (CAV), 4 PCOM, ICA (SUP), | SW | 10.02 (4.74) | CO @3mo | PED | Mut et al,34 | 0.32 (0.02) | 0.72 (0.25) | <0.00* | 0.14 (0.02) | 0.30 (0.08) | <0.00* |
| Chong et al,9 2014 | 8 | 4 | 5 ICA (SUP); 2 ICA (CAV), 1 Base of skull; | SW | 2.39 (0.83) | CO @6mo | Silk | Porous Medium35 | 0.09 (0.02) | 0.50 (0.05) | <0.00* | — | — | — |
| Kulcsár et al,12 2012 | 8 | 6 | ICA | SW | 2.08 (1.21) | CO @12mo | Silk | Rhinoceros12 | — | — | — | 0.56 (0.26) | 0.60 (0.20) | 0.84 |
| Total† | 149 | 99 | 3.37 (4.96) | 0.27 (0.13) | 0.35 (0.20) | 0.01‡ | 0.51 (0.15) | 0.41 (0.27) | 0.29 | |||||
| Author, year | WSS reduction (SD) | SR reduction (SD) | VCL reduction (SD) | TRT increase (SD) | EL Reduction (SD) | TUT increase (SD) | ||||||||||||
| S | U | P value | S | U | P value | S | U | P value | S | U | P value | S | U | P value | S | U | P value | |
| Paliwal et al,8 2018 | — | — | — | 0.29 (0.02) | 0.50 (0.04) | <0.00* | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2.55 (0.07) | 2.56 (0.02) | 0.47 |
| Paliwal et al,16 2017 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.62 (0.03) | 0.90 (0.10) | <0.00* | — | — | — | 0.57 (0.03) | 0.89 (0.10) | <0.00* | — | — | — |
| Mut et al,132014 | 0.27 (0.33) | 0.17 (0.02) | 0.38 | 0.17 (0.06) | 0.27 (0.02) | <0.00* | 11.29 (10.14) | 6.46 (1.21) | 0.2 | 6.00 (1.49) | 3.93 (0.93) | 0.00* | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Chong et al,9 2014 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.02 (0.01) | 0.43 (0.11) | <0.00* | — | — | — |
| Kulcsár et al,12 2012 | 0.42 (0.15) | 0.36 (0.04) | 0.6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total† | 0.38 (0.20) | 0.41 (0.15) | 0.83 | 0.42 (0.27) | 0.15 (0.19) | 0.02‡ | ||||||||||||
*Statistical significance confirmed (p<0.005).
†The total counts for number of aneurysms and number of successful cases have included seven additional studies that were not included in the final meta-analysis due to their limited sample size, and the corresponding hemodynamic parameters are averages of those from studies (n=12) included in the systematic review.
‡Suggestive of statistical significance (p<0.05).
AAV, intra-aneurysmal average velocity; ACOM, anterior communicating artery; AR, aspect ratio; CAV, cavernous; CO, complete occlusion; EL, energy loss; IA, intracranial aneurysm; ICA, internal carotid artery; IR, inflow rate; OPH, ophthalmic; PCOM, posterior communicating artery; S, successful; SR, shear rate; Succ, successful cases; SUP, supraclinoid; SW, side-wall; TRT, transition time; TUT, turnover time; U, unsuccessful; VCL, vortex coreline length; WSS, wall shear stress.