AI Article Synopsis

  • - The study investigates the potential risk of intraprocedural rupture (IPR) during coil embolization of ruptured intracranial aneurysms (RIAs) when using an intermediate catheter (IMC) compared to not using one.
  • - A retrospective analysis of 195 aneurysms in 192 patients over 16 years found that the incidence of IPR was significantly higher in the IMC group (14.0% vs. 3.3%) and remained higher (23.1% vs. 3.8%) even after controlling for other variables.
  • - The authors suggest that surgeons should exercise increased caution and care when using IMCs to prevent IPR during the embolization process.

Article Abstract

Introduction: An intermediate catheter (IMC) may pose a risk of intraprocedural rupture (IPR) during coil embolization of ruptured intracranial aneurysms (RIAs), because the pressure on the microcatheter and coil might be more direct. To verify this hypothesis, this study explored whether use of an IMC might correlate with an increased rate of IPR during coil embolization for RIAs.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 195 consecutive aneurysms in 192 patients who underwent initial coil embolization for saccular RIAs at our institution between January 2007 and December 2023. Patients were divided into two groups with aneurysms treated either with an IMC (IMC group) or without an IMC (non-IMC group). To investigate whether IMC use increased the rate of IPR, a propensity score-matched analysis was employed to control for age, sex, maximal aneurysm size, neck size, bleb formation, aneurysm location, proximal vessel tortuosity, balloon-assisted coiling, type of microcatheter, and type of framing coil.

Results: Ultimately, 43 (22%) coil embolization used IMC. In univariate analysis, the incidence of IPR was significantly higher in the IMC group compared with the non-IMC group (14.0 vs. 3.3%,  = 0.016). Propensity score matching was successful for pairs of 26 aneurysms in the IMC group and 52 aneurysms in the non-IMC group. The incidence of IPR was still significantly higher in the IMC group than in the non-IMC group (23.1 vs. 3.8%, = 0.015). No significant differences in the incidences of ischemic complications and IMC-related parent artery dissection were observed between the two groups.

Discussion: When using IMC for coil embolization of RIAs, the surgeons should be more careful and delicate in manipulating the microcatheter and inserting the coils to avoid IPR.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11272562PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2024.1401378DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

coil embolization
24
imc group
16
non-imc group
16
imc
11
intermediate catheter
8
intraprocedural rupture
8
embolization ruptured
8
ruptured intracranial
8
intracranial aneurysms
8
propensity score-matched
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!