J Neurosurg. 2022 Nov 4:1-7. doi: 10.3171/2022.10.JNS221138. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Woven EndoBridge (WEB) intrasaccular flow disruptors and stent-assisted coiling (SAC) are viable endovascular treatment options for wide-neck bifurcation intracranial aneurysms (WNBAs). Data directly comparing these two treatment options are limited. The authors aimed to compare radiographic occlusion rates and complication profiles between patients who received WEB and those who received SAC for WNBAs.
METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained cerebrovascular procedural database was performed at a single academic medical center between 2017 and 2021. Patients were included if they underwent WEB embolization or SAC of an unruptured WNBA. SAC patients were propensity matched to WEB-embolized patients on the basis of aneurysm morphology. Complete and adequate (complete occlusion or residual neck remnant) occlusion rates at last angiographic follow-up, as well as periprocedural complications, were compared between the two groups. A cost comparison was performed for a typical 5-mm WNBA treated with WEB versus SAC by using manufacturer-suggested retail prices.
RESULTS: Thirty-five WEB and 70 SAC patients were included. Aneurysm width, neck size, and dome-to-neck ratio were comparable between groups. Follow-up duration was significantly longer in the SAC group (median [interquartile range] 545 [202-834] days vs 228 [177-494] days, p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U-test). Complete (66% of WEB patients vs 69% of SAC patients) and adequate (94% WEB vs 91% SAC) occlusion rates were similar between groups at the last available angiographic follow-up (p = 0.744, chi-square test). Complete occlusion rates were comparable on Cox regression analysis after correction for follow-up duration (hazard ratio 1.5, 95% CI 0.8-3.1). Average time to residual aneurysm or neck formation was not statistically different between treatment groups (613 days for SAC patients vs 347 days for WEB patients, p = 0.225, log-rank test). Periprocedural complications trended higher in the SAC group (0% WEB vs 9% SAC, p = 0.175, Fisher exact test), although this finding was not significant. The equipment costs for a typical SAC case were estimated at $18,950, whereas the costs for a typical WEB device case were estimated at $18,630.
CONCLUSIONS: Midterm complete and adequate occlusion rates were similar between patients treated with WEB and those treated with SAC. Given these comparable outcomes, there may be equipoise in treatment options for WNBAs.
PMID:36334292 | DOI:10.3171/2022.10.JNS221138
