Procedural Clinical Complications, Case-Fatality Risks, and Risk Factors in Endovascular and Neurosurgical Treatment of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Cerebrovascular Disease | JAMA Neurology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure 1.  Overview of the Association Between Various Patient, Aneurysm, and Treatment Factors and Risk of Procedural Clinical Complications From Endovascular Treatment
Overview of the Association Between Various Patient, Aneurysm, and Treatment Factors and Risk of Procedural Clinical Complications From Endovascular Treatment

Abbreviations: ACA indicates anterior communicating artery; BAC, balloon-assisted coiling; ICA, internal carotid artery; MCA, middle cerebral artery; SAC, stent-assisted coiling.

Figure 2.  Overview of the Association Between Various Patient, Aneurysm, and Treatment Factors and Risk of Procedural Clinical Complications From Neurosurgical Treatment
Overview of the Association Between Various Patient, Aneurysm, and Treatment Factors and Risk of Procedural Clinical Complications From Neurosurgical Treatment

ICA indicates internal carotid artery.

Table 1.  Baseline Characteristics of Included Studies for Endovascular Treatment and Neurosurgical Treatment
Baseline Characteristics of Included Studies for Endovascular Treatment and Neurosurgical Treatment
Table 2.  Procedural Clinical Complication and Case-Fatality Rates From Endovascular Treatment for All Included Studies and According to Several Subgroups
Procedural Clinical Complication and Case-Fatality Rates From Endovascular Treatment for All Included Studies and According to Several Subgroups
Table 3.  Procedural Clinical Complication and Case-Fatality Rates From Neurosurgical Treatment for All Included Studies and by Subgroup
Procedural Clinical Complication and Case-Fatality Rates From Neurosurgical Treatment for All Included Studies and by Subgroup
Supplement.

eTable 1. Detailed search query

eTable 2. Excluded articles at full-text assessment

eTable 3. Baseline characteristics for included studies on endovascular treatment (EVT)

eTable 4. Baseline characteristics for included studies on neurosurgical treatment (NST)

eTable 5. Included studies reporting risk factor data

eFigure 1. Flowchart

eFigure 2. Forest plot of the association between age and risk of procedural clinical complications following EVT (A) and NST (B)

eFigure 3. Forest plot of the association between use of antiplatelet therapy (APT) and/or anticoagulation therapy (ACT) and risk of procedural clinical complications following EVT (A) and NST (B)

eFigure 4. Forest plot of the associations between aneurysm size and risk of procedural clinical complications following EVT (A) and NST (B)

eFigure 5. Forest plot of the association between female sex and risk of procedural clinical complications following EVT (A) and NST (B)

eFigure 6. Forest plot of the associations between history of SAH and risk of procedural clinical complications following EVT (A) and NST (B)

eFigure 7. Forest plot of the associations between coagulopathy and risk of procedural clinical complications following EVT (A) and NST (B)

eFigure 8. Forest plot of the associations between smoking and risk of procedural clinical complications following EVT (A) and NST (B)

eFigure 9. Summary forest plot of the associations between hypertension and risk of procedural clinical complications following EVT (A) and NST (B)

eFigure 10. Forest plot of the associations between diabetes and risk of procedural clinical complications following EVT (A) and NST (B)

eFigure 11. Forest plot of the associations between hyperlipidemia and risk of procedural treatment complications following EVT

eFigure 12. Forest plot of the associations between heart comorbidity and risk of procedural clinical complications following EVT (A) and NST(B)

eFigure 13. Forest plot of the association between aneurysm neck size and risk of procedural clinical complications following EVT

eFigure 14. Forest plot of the associations between aneurysm location and risk of procedural clinical complications following EVT (A) and NST (B)

eFigure 15. Forest plot of the association between aneurysm multiplicity and risk of procedural clinical complications following EVT

eFigure 16. Forest plot of the association between use of various advanced endovascular methods and risk of procedural clinical complications

eFigure 17. Forest plot of the association between aneurysm calcification and risk of procedural clinical complications following NST

eReferences. Excluded articles

1.
Vlak  MH, Algra  A, Brandenburg  R, Rinkel  GJ.  Prevalence of unruptured intracranial aneurysms, with emphasis on sex, age, comorbidity, country, and time period: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Lancet Neurol. 2011;10(7):626-636. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70109-0PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Gabriel  RA, Kim  H, Sidney  S,  et al.  Ten-year detection rate of brain arteriovenous malformations in a large, multiethnic, defined population.  Stroke. 2010;41(1):21-26. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.566018PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Brown  RD  Jr, Broderick  JP.  Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: epidemiology, natural history, management options, and familial screening.  Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(4):393-404. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70015-8PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Nieuwkamp  DJ, Setz  LE, Algra  A, Linn  FH, de Rooij  NK, Rinkel  GJ.  Changes in case fatality of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage over time, according to age, sex, and region: a meta-analysis.  Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(7):635-642. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70126-7PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Etminan  N, Rinkel  GJ.  Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: development, rupture and preventive management.  Nat Rev Neurol. 2016;12(12):699-713. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2016.150PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Greving  JP, Wermer  MJ, Brown  RD  Jr,  et al.  Development of the PHASES score for prediction of risk of rupture of intracranial aneurysms: a pooled analysis of six prospective cohort studies.  Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(1):59-66. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70263-1PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Tominari  S, Morita  A, Ishibashi  T,  et al; Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysm Study Japan Investigators.  Prediction model for 3-year rupture risk of unruptured cerebral aneurysms in Japanese patients.  Ann Neurol. 2015;77(6):1050-1059. doi:10.1002/ana.24400PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Etminan  N, Brown  RD  Jr, Beseoglu  K,  et al.  The unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: a multidisciplinary consensus.  Neurology. 2015;85(10):881-889. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000001891PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Naggara  ON, Lecler  A, Oppenheim  C, Meder  JF, Raymond  J.  Endovascular treatment of intracranial unruptured aneurysms: a systematic review of the literature on safety with emphasis on subgroup analyses.  Radiology. 2012;263(3):828-835. doi:10.1148/radiol.12112114PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Kotowski  M, Naggara  O, Darsaut  TE,  et al.  Safety and occlusion rates of surgical treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature from 1990 to 2011.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013;84(1):42-48. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2011-302068PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Moher  D, Liberati  A, Tetzlaff  J, Altman  DG; PRISMA Group.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.  PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Stroup  DF, Berlin  JA, Morton  SC,  et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting: Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.  JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012. doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Wells  GA, Shea  B, O’Connell  D,  et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale NOS for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Published 2018. Accessed November 15, 2018.
14.
Petr  O, Sejkorová  A, Bradáč  O, Brinjikji  W, Lanzino  G.  Safety and efficacy of treatment strategies for posterior inferior cerebellar artery aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016;158(12):2415-2428. doi:10.1007/s00701-016-2965-3PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Darsaut  TE, Findlay  JM, Magro  E,  et al.  Surgical clipping or endovascular coiling for unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a pragmatic randomised trial.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2017;88(8):663-668. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2016-315433PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Consoli  A, Vignoli  C, Renieri  L,  et al.  Assisted coiling of saccular wide-necked unruptured intracranial aneurysms: stent versus balloon.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2016;8(1):52-57. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011466PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Fennell  VS, Martirosyan  NL, Palejwala  SK, Lemole  GM  Jr, Dumont  TM.  Morbidity and mortality of patients with endovascularly treated intracerebral aneurysms: does physician specialty matter?  J Neurosurg. 2016;124(1):13-17. doi:10.3171/2014.11.JNS141030PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Jeon  HJ, Kim  SY, Park  KY, Lee  JW, Huh  SK.  Ideal clipping methods for unruptured middle cerebral artery bifurcation aneurysms based on aneurysmal neck classification.  Neurosurg Rev. 2016;39(2):215-223. doi:10.1007/s10143-015-0671-xPubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Ji  W, Kang  H, Liu  A,  et al.  Stent-assisted coiling of very small wide-necked intracranial aneurysms: complications, anatomical results and clinical outcomes.  Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2016;50(6):410-417.PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Ji  W, Liu  A, Lv  X,  et al.  Risk score for neurological complications after endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  Stroke. 2016;47(4):971-978. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.012097PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Lee  KM, Jo  KI, Jeon  P, Kim  KH, Kim  J-S, Hong  S-C.  Predictor and prognosis of procedural rupture during coil embolization for unruptured intracranial aneurysm.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2016;59(1):6-10. doi:10.3340/jkns.2016.59.1.6PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Park  JC, Lee  DH, Kim  JK,  et al.  Microembolism after endovascular coiling of unruptured cerebral aneurysms: incidence and risk factors.  J Neurosurg. 2016;124(3):777-783. doi:10.3171/2015.3.JNS142835PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Park  KY, Kim  BM, Kim  DJ.  Comparison between balloon-assisted and stent-assisted technique for treatment of unruptured internal carotid artery aneurysms.  Neurointervention. 2016;11(2):99-104. doi:10.5469/neuroint.2016.11.2.99PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Rozenfeld  MN, Ansari  SA, Mohan  P, Shaibani  A, Russell  EJ, Hurley  MC.  Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease and intracranial aneurysms: is there an increased risk of treatment?  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(2):290-293. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4490PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Shimizu  K, Imamura  H, Mineharu  Y, Adachi  H, Sakai  C, Sakai  N.  Endovascular treatment of unruptured Paraclinoid aneurysms: single-center experience with 400 cases and literature review.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(4):679-685. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4577PubMedGoogle Scholar
26.
Sim  SY, Song  J, Oh  S-Y,  et al.  incidence and characteristics of remote intracerebral hemorrhage after endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  World Neurosurg. 2016;95:335-340. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.08.057PubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
Son  Y-J, Kwon  O-K, Hwang  G, Park  NM, Oh  CW, Bang  JS.  Major recanalization occurs more often in young patients after unruptured aneurysm coil embolization.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016;158(3):551-556. doi:10.1007/s00701-015-2668-1PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
Stetler  WR  Jr, Griauzde  J, Saadeh  Y,  et al.  Is intensive care monitoring necessary after coil embolization of unruptured intracranial aneurysms?  J Neurointerv Surg. 2017;9(8):756-760.PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Zheng  Y, Liu  Y, Leng  B, Xu  F, Tian  Y.  Periprocedural complications associated with endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms in 1764 cases.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2016;8(2):152-157. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011459PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Bekelis  K, Missios  S, Coy  S, Singer  RJ, MacKenzie  TA.  New York state: comparison of treatment outcomes for unruptured cerebral aneurysms using an instrumental variable analysis.  J Am Heart Assoc. 2015;4(7):4. doi:10.1161/JAHA.115.002190PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Di Maria  F, Pistocchi  S, Clarençon  F,  et al.  Flow diversion versus standard endovascular techniques for the treatment of unruptured carotid-ophthalmic aneurysms.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(12):2325-2330. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4437PubMedGoogle Scholar
32.
Duan  Y, Blackham  K, Nelson  J, Selman  W, Bambakidis  N.  Analysis of short-term total hospital costs and current primary cost drivers of coiling versus clipping for unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2015;7(8):614-618. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011249PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
Gentric  JC, Biondi  A, Piotin  M,  et al.  Balloon remodeling may improve angiographic results of stent-assisted coiling of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  Neurosurgery. 2015;76(4):441-445. doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000639PubMedGoogle Scholar
34.
Ghinda  D, Dos Santos  MP, Sabri  A, Iancu  D, Lum  C, Lesiuk  HJ.  Clinical and angiographic outcomes of stent-assisted coiling of intracranial aneurysms.  Interv Neuroradiol. 2015;21(2):146-154. doi:10.1177/1591019915582152PubMedGoogle Scholar
35.
Hwang  G, Huh  W, Lee  JS,  et al.  Standard vs modified antiplatelet preparation for preventing thromboembolic events in patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity undergoing coil embolization for an unruptured intracranial aneurysm: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA Neurol. 2015;72(7):764-772. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2015.0654PubMedGoogle Scholar
36.
Ishihara  H, Ishihara  S, Niimi  J,  et al.  Risk factors for coil protrusion into the parent artery and associated thrombo-embolic events following unruptured cerebral aneurysm embolization.  Interv Neuroradiol. 2015;21(2):178-183. doi:10.1177/1591019915582375PubMedGoogle Scholar
37.
Jalbert  JJ, Isaacs  AJ, Kamel  H, Sedrakyan  A.  Clipping and coiling of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA) among Medicare beneficiaries, 2000-2010.  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24(suppl 1):298-299.Google Scholar
38.
Jang  EW, Kim  YB, Chung  J, Suh  SH, Hong  CK, Joo  JY.  Clinical risk factors affecting procedure-related major neurological complications in unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  Yonsei Med J. 2015;56(4):987-992. doi:10.3349/ymj.2015.56.4.987PubMedGoogle Scholar
39.
Kim  M, Park  J, Lee  J.  Comparative cost analysis for surgical and endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms in South Korea.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2015;57(6):455-459. doi:10.3340/jkns.2015.57.6.455PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
McDonald  RJ, McDonald  JS, Kallmes  DF, Lanzino  G, Cloft  HJ.  Periprocedural safety of pipeline therapy for unruptured cerebral aneurysms: analysis of 279 patients in a multihospital database.  Interv Neuroradiol. 2015;21(1):6-10. doi:10.1177/1591019915576289PubMedGoogle Scholar
41.
Oh  S-Y, Lee  KS, Kim  B-S, Shin  YS.  Management strategy of surgical and endovascular treatment of unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms based on the location of aneurysms.  Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015;128:72-77. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.11.008PubMedGoogle Scholar
42.
Oishi  H, Yamamoto  M, Nonaka  S,  et al.  Treatment results of endosaccular coil embolization of asymptomatic unruptured intracranial aneurysms in elderly patients.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2015;7(9):660-665. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011305PubMedGoogle Scholar
43.
Poncyljusz  W, Biliński  P, Safranow  K,  et al.  The LVIS/LVIS Jr. stents in the treatment of wide-neck intracranial aneurysms: multicentre registry.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2015;7(7):524-529. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011229PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Poncyljusz  W, Zarzycki  A, Zwarzany  Ł, Burke  TH.  Bare platinum coils vs. HydroCoil in the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms—a single center randomized controlled study.  Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(2):261-265. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.11.002PubMedGoogle Scholar
45.
Song  J, Kim  B-S, Shin  YS.  Treatment outcomes of unruptured intracranial aneurysm; experience of 1,231 consecutive aneurysms.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2015;157(8):1303-1310. doi:10.1007/s00701-015-2460-2PubMedGoogle Scholar
46.
Starke  RM, Durst  CR, Evans  A,  et al.  Endovascular treatment of unruptured wide-necked intracranial aneurysms: comparison of dual microcatheter technique and stent-assisted coil embolization.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2015;7(4):256-261. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011159PubMedGoogle Scholar
47.
Suzuki  M, Yoneda  H, Ishihara  H,  et al.  Adverse events after unruptured cerebral aneurysm treatment: a single-center experience with clipping/coil embolization combined units.  J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;24(1):223-231. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.08.018PubMedGoogle Scholar
48.
Yang  H, Sun  Y, Jiang  Y,  et al.  Comparison of stent-assisted coiling vs coiling alone in 563 intracranial aneurysms: safety and efficacy at a high-volume center.  Neurosurgery. 2015;77(2):241-247. doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000765PubMedGoogle Scholar
49.
Bekelis  K, Missios  S, Mackenzie  TA, Fischer  A, Labropoulos  N, Eskey  C.  A predictive model of outcomes during cerebral aneurysm coiling.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2014;6(5):342-348. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2013-010815PubMedGoogle Scholar
50.
Chalouhi  N, Starke  RM, Yang  S,  et al.  Extending the indications of flow diversion to small, unruptured, saccular aneurysms of the anterior circulation.  Stroke. 2014;45(1):54-58. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.003038PubMedGoogle Scholar
51.
Delgado Almandoz  JE, Kadkhodayan  Y, Crandall  BM, Scholz  JM, Fease  JL, Tubman  DE.  Variability in initial response to standard clopidogrel therapy, delayed conversion to clopidogrel hyper-response, and associated thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications in patients undergoing endovascular treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2014;6(10):767-773. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2013-010976PubMedGoogle Scholar
52.
Frontera  JA, Moatti  J, de los Reyes  KM,  et al.  Safety and cost of stent-assisted coiling of unruptured intracranial aneurysms compared with coiling or clipping.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2014;6(1):65-71. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2012-010544PubMedGoogle Scholar
53.
Hetts  SW, Turk  A, English  JD,  et al; Matrix and Platinum Science Trial Investigators.  Stent-assisted coiling versus coiling alone in unruptured intracranial aneurysms in the matrix and platinum science trial: safety, efficacy, and mid-term outcomes.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(4):698-705. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3755PubMedGoogle Scholar
54.
Kim  B, Kim  K, Jeon  P,  et al.  Thromboembolic complications in patients with clopidogrel resistance after coil embolization for unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(9):1786-1792. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3955PubMedGoogle Scholar
55.
Kwon  SC, Kwon  O-K; Korean Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysm Coiling (KUCAC) Investigators.  Endovascular coil embolization of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a Korean multicenter study.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2014;156(5):847-854. doi:10.1007/s00701-014-2033-9PubMedGoogle Scholar
56.
Takigawa  T, Suzuki  K, Sugiura  Y,  et al.  Thromboembolic events associated with single balloon-, double balloon-, and stent-assisted coil embolization of asymptomatic unruptured cerebral aneurysms: evaluation with diffusion-weighted MR imaging.  Neuroradiology. 2014;56(12):1079-1086. doi:10.1007/s00234-014-1421-4PubMedGoogle Scholar
57.
Zacharia  BE, Bruce  SS, Carpenter  AM,  et al.  Variability in outcome after elective cerebral aneurysm repair in high-volume academic medical centers.  Stroke. 2014;45(5):1447-1452. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.004412PubMedGoogle Scholar
58.
Gentric  JC, Biondi  A, Piotin  M,  et al; French SENAT Investigators.  Safety and efficacy of neuroform for treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a prospective, consecutive, French multicentric study.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(6):1203-1208. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3379PubMedGoogle Scholar
59.
Hwang  S-K, Kim  S-H.  Endovascular coil embolization assisted with enterprise stent for wide-necked unruptured intracranial aneurysms: Safety and efficacy.  Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013;36(suppl 1):64.Google Scholar
60.
Ishibashi  T, Murayama  Y, Saguchi  T,  et al.  Justification of unruptured intracranial aneurysm repair: a single-center experience.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(8):1600-1605. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3470PubMedGoogle Scholar
61.
Jo  KI, Yeon  JY, Kim  KH, Jeon  P, Kim  J-S, Hong  S-C.  Predictors of thromboembolism during coil embolization in patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysm.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2013;155(6):1101-1106. doi:10.1007/s00701-013-1706-0PubMedGoogle Scholar
62.
Kang  DH, Kim  BM, Kim  DJ,  et al.  MR-DWI-positive lesions and symptomatic ischemic complications after coiling of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  Stroke. 2013;44(3):789-791. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.669853PubMedGoogle Scholar
63.
Kim  MJ, Lim  YC, Oh  S-Y, Kim  BM, Kim  B-S, Shin  YS.  Thromboembolic events associated with electrolytic detachment of Guglielmi detachable coils and target coils: comparison with use of diffusion-weighted MR imaging.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2013;54(1):19-24. doi:10.3340/jkns.2013.54.1.19PubMedGoogle Scholar
64.
Kunz  M, Bakhshai  Y, Zausinger  S,  et al.  Interdisciplinary treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: impact of intraprocedural rupture and ischemia in 563 aneurysms.  J Neurol. 2013;260(5):1304-1313. doi:10.1007/s00415-012-6795-9PubMedGoogle Scholar
65.
Lad  SP, Babu  R, Rhee  MS,  et al.  Long-term economic impact of coiling vs clipping for unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  Neurosurgery. 2013;72(6):1000-1011. doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000429284.91142.56PubMedGoogle Scholar
66.
Moscato  G, Cirillo  L, Dall’olio  M, Princiotta  C, Simonetti  L, Leonardi  M.  Management of unruptured brain aneurysms: retrospective analysis of a single centre experience.  Neuroradiol J. 2013;26(3):315-319. doi:10.1177/197140091302600311PubMedGoogle Scholar
67.
Nishikawa  Y, Satow  T, Takagi  T, Murao  K, Miyamoto  S, Iihara  K.  Efficacy and safety of single versus dual antiplatelet therapy for coiling of unruptured aneurysms.  J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013;22(5):650-655. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2012.02.008PubMedGoogle Scholar
68.
Sharma  M, Brown  B, Madhugiri  V,  et al.  Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: comparison of perioperative complications, discharge disposition, outcome, and effect of calcification, between clipping and coiling: a single institution experience.  Neurol India. 2013;61(3):270-276. doi:10.4103/0028-3886.115067PubMedGoogle Scholar
69.
Shigematsu  T, Fujinaka  T, Yoshimine  T,  et al; JR-NET Investigators.  Endovascular therapy for asymptomatic unruptured intracranial aneurysms: JR-NET and JR-NET2 findings.  Stroke. 2013;44(10):2735-2742. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000609PubMedGoogle Scholar
70.
Wang  K, Sun  Y, Li  A-M.  Peri-procedural morbidity and mortality associated with stent-assisted coiling for intracranial aneurysms.  Interv Neuroradiol. 2013;19(1):43-48. doi:10.1177/159101991301900106PubMedGoogle Scholar
71.
Hill  MD, Martin  RH, Mikulis  D,  et al; ENACT trial investigators.  Safety and efficacy of NA-1 in patients with iatrogenic stroke after endovascular aneurysm repair (ENACT): a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.  Lancet Neurol. 2012;11(11):942-950. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70225-9PubMedGoogle Scholar
72.
Khosla  A, Brinjikji  W, Cloft  H, Lanzino  G, Kallmes  DF.  Age-related complications following endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33(5):953-957. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2881PubMedGoogle Scholar
73.
Kim  BM, Kim  DJ, Jeon  P,  et al.  Endovascular embolization of intracranial aneurysms using bare platinum Axium™ detachable coils: immediate and short-term follow-up results from a multicenter registry.  Neurointervention. 2012;7(2):85-92. doi:10.5469/neuroint.2012.7.2.85PubMedGoogle Scholar
74.
Matsumoto  Y, Kondo  R, Matsumori  Y, Shimizu  H, Takahashi  A, Tominaga  T.  Antiplatelet therapy for prevention of thromboembolic complications associated with coil embolization of unruptured cerebral aneurysms.  Drugs R D. 2012;12(1):1-7. doi:10.2165/11599070-000000000-00000PubMedGoogle Scholar
75.
Oishi  H, Yamamoto  M, Shimizu  T, Yoshida  K, Arai  H.  Endovascular therapy of 500 small asymptomatic unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33(5):958-964. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2858PubMedGoogle Scholar
76.
Park  SH, Kim  YB, Huh  SK.  Effect of premedication method and drug resistance of antiplatelet agent on periprocedural thromboembolic events during coil embolization of an unruptured intracranial aneurysm.  J Cerebrovasc Endovasc Neurosurg. 2012;14(3):148-156. doi:10.7461/jcen.2012.14.3.148PubMedGoogle Scholar
77.
Bhatia  S, Sekula  RF, Quigley  MR, Williams  R, Ku  A.  Role of calcification in the outcomes of treated, unruptured, intracerebral aneurysms.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2011;153(4):905-911. doi:10.1007/s00701-010-0846-8PubMedGoogle Scholar
78.
Hwang  G, Park  H, Bang  JS,  et al.  Comparison of 2-year angiographic outcomes of stent- and nonstent-assisted coil embolization in unruptured aneurysms with an unfavorable configuration for coiling.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(9):1707-1710. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2592PubMedGoogle Scholar
79.
Hwang  S-K, Hwang  G, Oh  CW,  et al.  Endovascular treatment for unruptured intracranial aneurysms in elderly patients: single-center report.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(6):1087-1090. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2458PubMedGoogle Scholar
80.
Kim  BM, Kim  DI, Park  SI, Kim  DJ, Suh  SH, Won  YS.  Coil embolization of unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms.  Neurosurgery. 2011;68(2):346-353. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182035fdcPubMedGoogle Scholar
81.
Lessne  ML, Shah  P, Alexander  MJ,  et al.  Patient factors associated with thromboembolic complications after neuroforma stent assisted treatment of cerebral aneurysms: the Duke Cerebrovascular Center experience in 235 patients with 274 stents.  J Neurosurg. 2011;115:A458-A459.Google Scholar
82.
Loumiotis  I, Brown  RD  Jr, Vine  R, Cloft  HJ, Kallmes  DF, Lanzino  G.  Small (< 10-mm) incidentally found intracranial aneurysms, part 2: treatment recommendations, natural history, complications, and short-term outcome in 212 consecutive patients.  Neurosurg Focus. 2011;31(6):E4. doi:10.3171/2011.9.FOCUS11237PubMedGoogle Scholar
83.
Ogilvy  CS, Yang  X, Jamil  OA,  et al.  Neurointerventional procedures for unruptured intracranial aneurysms under procedural sedation and local anesthesia: a large-volume, single-center experience—clinical article.  J Neurosurg. 2011;114(1):120-128. doi:10.3171/2010.3.JNS091384PubMedGoogle Scholar
84.
Raymond  J, Darsaut  TE, Molyneux  AJ; TEAM collaborative Group.  A trial on unruptured intracranial aneurysms (the TEAM trial): results, lessons from a failure and the necessity for clinical care trials.  Trials. 2011;12:64. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-64PubMedGoogle Scholar
85.
Schubert  GA, Thomé  C, Seiz  M, Douville  C, Eskridge  J.  Microembolic signal monitoring after coiling of unruptured cerebral aneurysms: an observational analysis of 123 cases.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(8):1386-1391. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2507PubMedGoogle Scholar
86.
Spiotta  AM, Bhalla  T, Hussain  MS,  et al.  An analysis of inflation times during balloon-assisted aneurysm coil embolization and ischemic complications.  Stroke. 2011;42(4):1051-1055. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.602276PubMedGoogle Scholar
87.
Zacharia  BE, Ducruet  AF, Hickman  ZL,  et al.  Technological advances in the management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms fail to improve outcome in New York state.  Stroke. 2011;42(10):2844-2849. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.619767PubMedGoogle Scholar
88.
Ahn  JY, Kim  ST, Yi  KC, Lee  WH, Paeng  SH, Jeong  YG.  Superficial temporal artery-sparing mini-pterional approach for cerebral aneurysm surgery.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2017;60(1):8-14. doi:10.3340/jkns.2016.0707.004PubMedGoogle Scholar
89.
Bekelis  K, Gottlieb  D, Bovis  G,  et al.  Unruptured cerebral aneurysm clipping: association of combined open and endovascular expertise with outcomes.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2016;8(9):977-981. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-011986PubMedGoogle Scholar
90.
Bekelis  K, Missios  S, MacKenzie  TA, Labropoulos  N, Roberts  DW.  A predictive model of hospitalization cost after cerebral aneurysm clipping.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2016;8(3):316-322. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011575PubMedGoogle Scholar
91.
Byoun  HS, Bang  JS, Oh  CW,  et al.  The incidence of and risk factors for ischemic complications after microsurgical clipping of unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms and the efficacy of intraoperative monitoring of somatosensory evoked potentials: a retrospective study.  Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;151:128-135. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.10.008PubMedGoogle Scholar
92.
Chen  SF, Kato  Y, Kumar  A,  et al.  Intraoperative rupture in the surgical treatment of patients with intracranial aneurysms.  J Clin Neurosci. 2016;34:63-69. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2016.01.045PubMedGoogle Scholar
93.
Choi  Y-J, Son  W, Park  K-S, Park  J.  Intradural procedural time to assess technical difficulty of superciliary keyhole and pterional approaches for unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2016;59(6):564-569. doi:10.3340/jkns.2016.59.6.564PubMedGoogle Scholar
94.
Choi  JH, Park  JE, Kim  MJ, Kim  BS, Shin  YS.  Aneurysmal neck clipping as the primary treatment option for both ruptured and unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2016;59(3):269-275. doi:10.3340/jkns.2016.59.3.269PubMedGoogle Scholar
95.
Jabbarli  R, Wrede  KH, Pierscianek  D,  et al.  Outcome after clipping of unruptured intracranial aneurysms depends on caseload.  World Neurosurg. 2016;89:666-671.e1. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.12.043PubMedGoogle Scholar
96.
Kerezoudis  P, McCutcheon  BA, Murphy  M,  et al.  Predictors of 30-day perioperative morbidity and mortality of unruptured intracranial aneurysm surgery.  Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;149:75-80. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.07.027PubMedGoogle Scholar
97.
Kockro  RA, Killeen  T, Ayyad  A,  et al.  Aneurysm surgery with pre-operative 3D planning in a virtual reality environment: technique and outcome analysis.  World Neurosurg. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.08.124Google Scholar
98.
Koźba-Gosztyła  M, Czapiga  B, Jarmundowicz  W, Tomiałowicz  Ł.  Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: surgery still safe as a treatment option.  Adv Clin Exp Med. 2016;25(5):911-916. doi:10.17219/acem/61803PubMedGoogle Scholar
99.
Kwon  M-Y, Kim  C-H, Lee  C-Y.  Predicting factors of chronic subdural hematoma following surgical clipping in unruptured and ruptured intracranial aneurysm.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2016;59(5):458-465. doi:10.3340/jkns.2016.59.5.458PubMedGoogle Scholar
100.
Matsukawa  H, Tanikawa  R, Kamiyama  H,  et al.  Risk factors for visual impairments in patients with unruptured intradural paraclinoid aneurysms treated by neck clipping without bypass surgery.  World Neurosurg. 2016;91:183-189. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.04.004PubMedGoogle Scholar
101.
McCutcheon  BA, Kerezoudis  P, Porter  AL,  et al.  Coma and stroke following surgical treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysm: an American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program study.  World Neurosurg. 2016;91:272-278. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.04.039PubMedGoogle Scholar
102.
Park  J, Cho  JH, Goh  DH, Kang  DH, Shin  IH, Hamm  IS.  Postoperative subdural hygroma and chronic subdural hematoma after unruptured aneurysm surgery: age, sex, and aneurysm location as independent risk factors.  J Neurosurg. 2016;124(2):310-317. doi:10.3171/2015.1.JNS14309PubMedGoogle Scholar
103.
Steklacova  A, Bradac  O, Charvat  F, De Lacy  P, Benes  V.  “Clip first” policy in management of intracranial MCA aneurysms: single-centre experience with a systematic review of literature.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016;158(3):533-546. doi:10.1007/s00701-015-2687-yPubMedGoogle Scholar
104.
Bruneau  M, Amin-Hanjani  S, Koroknay-Pal  P,  et al.  Surgical clipping of very small unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a multicenter international study.  Neurosurgery. 2016;78(1):47-52. doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000991PubMedGoogle Scholar
105.
Chen  SF, Kato  Y, Sinha  R,  et al.  Surgical treatment of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(1):69-72. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2014.05.048PubMedGoogle Scholar
106.
Chung  J, Hong  C-K, Shim  YS,  et al.  Microsurgical clipping of unruptured middle cerebral artery bifurcation aneurysms: incidence of and risk factors for procedure-related complications.  World Neurosurg. 2015;83(5):666-672. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.01.023PubMedGoogle Scholar
107.
Hallout  S.  Surgical treatment of middle cerebral artery aneurysms without using indocyanine green videoangiography assistance: retrospective monocentric study of 263 clipped aneurysms.  World Neurosurg. 2015;84(4):972-977. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.05.069PubMedGoogle Scholar
108.
Jo  K-I, Kim  HR, Yeon  JY, Hong  S-C, Kim  J-S.  Treatment outcomes of surgical clipping for unruptured anterior circulation aneurysm-single institute experiences in the era of neurophysiologic monitoring and endovascular treatment.  Neurosurg Rev. 2015;38(4):677-682. doi:10.1007/s10143-015-0642-2PubMedGoogle Scholar
109.
Kim  SY, Jeon  HJ, Ihm  EH, Park  KY, Lee  JW, Huh  SK.  Microsurgical efficacy and safety of a right-hemispheric approach for unruptured anterior communicating artery aneurysms.  Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015;137:62-66. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.06.009PubMedGoogle Scholar
110.
Lee  JY, Seo  JH, Cho  YD, Kang  H-S, Han  MH.  Endovascular treatment of 429 anterior communicating artery aneurysms using bare-platinum coils: clinical and radiologic outcomes at the long-term follow-up.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2015;57(3):159-166. doi:10.3340/jkns.2015.57.3.159PubMedGoogle Scholar
111.
Sakarunchai  I, Kato  Y, Yamada  Y, Inamasu  J.  Ischemic event and risk factors of embolic stroke in atherosclerotic cerebral aneurysm patients treated with a new clipping technique.  J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;24(11):2497-2507. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.06.032PubMedGoogle Scholar
112.
Song  JH, Chang  IB, Ahn  JH, Kim  JH, Oh  JK, Cho  BM.  Angiographic results of wide-necked intracranial aneurysms treated with coil embolization: a single center experience.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2015;57(4):250-257. doi:10.3340/jkns.2015.57.4.250PubMedGoogle Scholar
113.
Yagi  K, Irie  S, Inagaki  T,  et al.  Intraoperative arachnoid plasty has possibility to prevent chronic subdural hematoma after surgery for unruptured cerebral aneurysms.  Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2015;55(6):493-497. doi:10.2176/nmc.oa.2014-0455PubMedGoogle Scholar
114.
Yamada  Y, Kato  Y, Ishihara  K,  et al.  Role of endoscopy in multi-modality monitoring during aneurysm surgery: a single center experience with 175 consecutive unruptured aneurysms.  Asian J Neurosurg. 2015;10(1):52. doi:10.4103/1793-5482.151518PubMedGoogle Scholar
115.
Bekelis  K, Missios  S, MacKenzie  TA,  et al.  Predicting inpatient complications from cerebral aneurysm clipping: the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2005-2009.  J Neurosurg. 2014;120(3):591-598. doi:10.3171/2013.8.JNS13228PubMedGoogle Scholar
116.
Dammann  P, Schoemberg  T, Müller  O,  et al.  Outcome for unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysm treatment: surgical and endovascular approach in a single center.  Neurosurg Rev. 2014;37(4):643-651. doi:10.1007/s10143-014-0563-5PubMedGoogle Scholar
117.
Griessenauer  CJ, Poston  TL, Shoja  MM,  et al.  The impact of temporary artery occlusion during intracranial aneurysm surgery on long-term clinical outcome, part II: the patient who undergoes elective clipping.  World Neurosurg. 2014;82(3-4):402-408. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2013.02.067PubMedGoogle Scholar
118.
Shibahashi  K, Morita  A, Kimura  T.  Does a craniotomy for treatment of unruptured aneurysm affect cognitive function?  Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2014;54(10):786-793. doi:10.2176/nmc.oa.2013-0324PubMedGoogle Scholar
119.
Inamasu  J, Watabe  T, Ganaha  T,  et al.  Clinical characteristics and risk factors of chronic subdural haematoma associated with clipping of unruptured cerebral aneurysms.  J Clin Neurosci. 2013;20(8):1095-1098. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2012.09.024PubMedGoogle Scholar
120.
Ohno  T, Iihara  K, Takahashi  JC,  et al.  Incidence and risk factors of chronic subdural hematoma after aneurysmal clipping.  World Neurosurg. 2013;80(5):534-537. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2012.09.025PubMedGoogle Scholar
121.
Cha  KC, Hong  SC, Kim  JS.  Comparison between lateral supraorbital approach and pterional approach in the surgical treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2012;51(6):334-337. doi:10.3340/jkns.2012.51.6.334PubMedGoogle Scholar
122.
Shin  D, Park  J.  Unruptured supraclinoid internal carotid artery aneurysm surgery: superciliary keyhole approach versus pterional approach.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2012;52(4):306-311. doi:10.3340/jkns.2012.52.4.306PubMedGoogle Scholar
123.
Thines  L, Bourgeois  P, Lejeune  J-P.  Surgery for unruptured intracranial aneurysms in the ISAT and ISUIA era.  Can J Neurol Sci. 2012;39(2):174-179. doi:10.1017/S0317167100013184PubMedGoogle Scholar
124.
Wicks  RT, Pradilla  G, Raza  SM,  et al.  Impact of changes in intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials on stroke rates after clipping of intracranial aneurysms.  Neurosurgery. 2012;70(5):1114-1124. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31823f5cf7PubMedGoogle Scholar
125.
Park  J, Woo  H, Kang  D-H, Sung  J-K, Kim  Y.  Superciliary keyhole approach for small unruptured aneurysms in anterior cerebral circulation.  Neurosurgery. 2011;68(2)(Suppl Operative):300-309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
126.
Szelényi  A, Beck  J, Strametz  R,  et al.  Is the surgical repair of unruptured atherosclerotic aneurysms at a higher risk of intraoperative ischemia?  Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2011;113(2):129-135. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2010.10.012PubMedGoogle Scholar
127.
Yeon  JY, Kim  J-S, Hong  S-C.  Angiographic characteristics of unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms predicting perforator injuries.  Br J Neurosurg. 2011;25(4):497-502. doi:10.3109/02688697.2010.535924PubMedGoogle Scholar
128.
Bekelis  K, Gottlieb  D, Labropoulos  N,  et al.  The impact of hybrid neurosurgeons on the outcomes of endovascular coiling for unruptured cerebral aneurysms.  J Neurosurg. 2017;126(1):29-35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
129.
Clajus  C, Strasilla  C, Fiebig  T, Sychra  V, Fiorella  D, Klisch  J.  Initial and mid-term results from 108 consecutive patients with cerebral aneurysms treated with the WEB device.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2017;9(4):411-417.PubMedGoogle Scholar
130.
Kotowski  M, Naggara  O, Darsaut  TE, Raymond  J.  Systematic reviews of the literature on clipping and coiling of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  Neurochirurgie. 2012;58(2-3):125-139. doi:10.1016/j.neuchi.2012.02.021PubMedGoogle Scholar
131.
Lanterna  LA, Tredici  G, Dimitrov  BD, Biroli  F.  Treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms by embolization with guglielmi detachable coils: case-fatality, morbidity, and effectiveness in preventing bleeding—a systematic review of the literature.  Neurosurgery. 2004;55(4):767-775. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000137653.93173.1CPubMedGoogle Scholar
132.
Naggara  ON, White  PM, Guilbert  F, Roy  D, Weill  A, Raymond  J.  Endovascular treatment of intracranial unruptured aneurysms: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on safety and efficacy.  Radiology. 2010;256(3):887-897. doi:10.1148/radiol.10091982PubMedGoogle Scholar
133.
Briganti  F, Leone  G, Marseglia  M,  et al.  Endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms using flow-diverter devices: a systematic review.  Neuroradiol J. 2015;28(4):365-375. doi:10.1177/1971400915602803PubMedGoogle Scholar
134.
Fang  S, Brinjikji  W, Murad  MH, Kallmes  DF, Cloft  HJ, Lanzino  G.  Endovascular treatment of anterior communicating artery aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(5):943-947. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3802PubMedGoogle Scholar
135.
Hwang  JS, Hyun  MK, Lee  HJ,  et al.  Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping in patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysm: a systematic review.  BMC Neurol. 2012;12:99. doi:10.1186/1471-2377-12-99PubMedGoogle Scholar
136.
Eappen  S, Lane  BH, Rosenberg  B,  et al.  Relationship between occurrence of surgical complications and hospital finances.  JAMA. 2013;309(15):1599-1606. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.2773PubMedGoogle Scholar
137.
Barker  FG  II, Amin-Hanjani  S, Butler  WE, Ogilvy  CS, Carter  BS.  In-hospital mortality and morbidity after surgical treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms in the United States, 1996-2000: the effect of hospital and surgeon volume.  Neurosurgery. 2003;52(5):995-1007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
138.
Asnafi  S, Rouchaud  A, Pierot  L, Brinjikji  W, Murad  MH, Kallmes  DF.  Efficacy and safety of the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(12):2287-2292. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4900PubMedGoogle Scholar
139.
Murthy  SB, Shah  S, Venkatasubba Rao  CP, Bershad  EM, Suarez  JI.  Treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms with the pipeline embolization device.  J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21(1):6-11. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2013.03.014PubMedGoogle Scholar
140.
Rouchaud  A, Brinjikji  W, Lanzino  G, Cloft  HJ, Kadirvel  R, Kallmes  DF.  Delayed hemorrhagic complications after flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms: a literature overview.  Neuroradiology. 2016;58(2):171-177. doi:10.1007/s00234-015-1615-4PubMedGoogle Scholar
Original Investigation
December 28, 2018

Procedural Clinical Complications, Case-Fatality Risks, and Risk Factors in Endovascular and Neurosurgical Treatment of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author Affiliations
  • 1Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
  • 2Department of Neurosurgery, NeuroCenter, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland
  • 3Department of Neurosurgery, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
  • 4Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
  • 5Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
JAMA Neurol. 2019;76(3):282-293. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4165
Key Points

Question  What is the 30-day clinical complication risk and case-fatality rate of endovascular treatment and neurosurgical treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms?

Findings  In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 114 studies and 106 433 patients, among the 74 studies of endovascular treatment, the risk of procedural clinical complications was 4.96% (95% CI, 4.00%-6.12%), and the case-fatality rate was 0.30% (95% CI, 0.20%-0.40%). In 54 studies of neurosurgical treatment, the pooled complication risk was 8.34% (95% CI, 6.25%-11.10%) and the case-fatality rate was 0.10% (95% CI, 0.00%-0.20%).

Meaning  The complication risks were particularly dependent on detailed and standardized recording of complications, method of outcome assessment, and region and varied according to several patient-level, aneurysm-level, and treatment-associated risk factors.

Abstract

Importance  The risk of procedural clinical complications and the case-fatality rate (CFR) from preventive treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms varies between studies and may depend on treatment modality and risk factors.

Objective  To assess current procedural clinical 30-day complications and the CFR from endovascular treatment (EVT) and neurosurgical treatment (NST) of unruptured intracranial aneurysms and risk factors of clinical complications.

Data Sources  We searched PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, and the Cochrane Database for studies published between January 1, 2011, and January 1, 2017.

Study Selection  Studies reporting on clinical complications, the CFR, and risk factors, including 50 patients or more undergoing EVT or NST for saccular unruptured intracranial aneurysms after January 1, 2000, were eligible.

Data Extraction and Synthesis  Per treatment modality, we analyzed clinical complication risk and the CFR with mixed-effects logistic regression models for dichotomous data. For studies reporting data on complication risk factors, we obtained risk ratios (RRs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs and pooled risk estimates with weighted random-effects models.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Clinical complications within 30 days and the CFR.

Results  We included 114 studies (106 433 patients with 108 263 aneurysms). For EVT (74 studies), the pooled clinical complication risk was 4.96% (95% CI, 4.00%-6.12%), and the CFR was 0.30% (95% CI, 0.20%-0.40%). Factors associated with complications from EVT were female sex (pooled OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.01-1.11]), diabetes (OR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.05-3.13]), hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.3-2.37]), cardiac comorbidity (OR, 2.27 [95% CI, 1.53-3.37]), wide aneurysm neck (>4 mm or dome-to-neck ratio >1.5; OR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.38-2.11]), posterior circulation aneurysm (OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.15-1.74]), stent-assisted coiling (OR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.16-2.85]), and stenting (OR, 3.43 [95% CI, 1.45-8.09]). For NST (54 studies), the pooled complication risk was 8.34% (95% CI, 6.25%-11.10%) and the CFR was 0.10% (95% CI, 0.00%-0.20%). Factors associated with complications from NST were age (OR per year increase, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01-1.02]), female sex (OR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.32-0.85]), coagulopathy (OR, 2.14 [95% CI, 1.13-4.06]), use of anticoagulation (OR, 6.36 [95% CI, 2.55-15.85]), smoking (OR, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.36-2.79]), hypertension (OR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.03-2.03]), diabetes (OR, 2.38 [95% CI, 1.54-3.67]), congestive heart failure (OR, 2.71 [95% CI, 1.57-4.69]), posterior aneurysm location (OR, 7.25 [95% CI, 3.70-14.20]), and aneurysm calcification (OR, 2.89 [95% CI, 1.35-6.18]).

Conclusions and Relevance  This study identifies risk factors for procedural complications. Large data sets with individual patient data are needed to develop and validate prediction scores for absolute complication risks and CFRs from EVT and NST modalities.

Introduction

The prevalence of saccular unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) in the general population is 3%.1 Owing to the rising availability and quality of brain imaging, the number of incidentally discovered UIAs is increasing.2,3 Many UIAs remain asymptomatic, but some rupture, causing subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). This is a subtype of stroke with a poor prognosis (a case-fatality rate of approximately 35%), often affecting relatively young patients (mean age, 60 years).4 Preventive treatment of UIAs, either by endovascular treatment (EVT) or neurosurgical treatment (NST), can decrease the risk of SAH, but both treatment modalities carry a risk of serious complications.5 Currently, the decision to treat UIAs is a balance of risk of rupture, risk of treatment complications, life expectancy, and level of patient anxiety. For estimations of the rupture risk, prediction models are available that provide absolute risks of rupture for the next 5 years based on a few easily available risk factors.6,7 Such robust data are lacking for the estimation of complication risk from UIA treatment.5,8 The best available evidence comes from meta-analyses published in 2012 and 2013 on the procedural morbidity and case-fatality risk of EVT and NST.9,10 However, since the publication of these reviews, there has been a further shift toward EVT as the predominant treatment modality, with an increasing variety of advanced endovascular methods being used, such as stent-assisted or balloon-assisted coiling, flow-diverting stents, and Woven EndoBridge (WEB) Aneurysm Embolization devices. In addition, previous meta-analyses did not focus on risk factors for complications apart from subgroup analyses. Our aim is to provide an overview of the recent literature on EVT and NST, with several new focuses. In addition to assessing the procedural 30-day clinical complication and case-fatality risks of both treatment modalities, we conducted a meta-analysis of the available risk factor data for clinical complications from both EVT and NST, and we separately assess the complication risk of advanced endovascular methods that were increasingly applied in clinical practice over the last few years.

Methods
Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

We systematically searched PubMed, Excerpta Medica database, and the Cochrane Database between January 1, 2011, and January 1, 2017, to retrieve all relevant articles on procedural clinical complications and case-fatality rates from EVT and NST of UIAs. A detailed query is given in eTable 1 in the Supplement. We checked related articles given on PubMed and reference lists of retrieved articles for further eligible publications and compared the list of articles found with a database of references from one of us (G.J.E.R.). We performed our systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendations and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines.11,12

Selection of Studies and Data Extraction

Articles were eligible for inclusion if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) used a longitudinal design documenting procedural clinical complications and/or a case-fatality rate; (2) included at least 50 patients 18 years and older undergoing elective EVT (standard coiling or one of the following advanced endovascular methods: stent-assisted or balloon-assisted coiling, use of stents or flow diverting stents or use of WEB devices) or NST (including only clipping) between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2017; (3) was written in Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, English, German, Dutch, or Scandinavian; (4) included crude or adjusted effect estimates with corresponding 95% CIs for risk factors of clinical complications available or retrievable from the data; and (5) included patients with saccular UIAs. We allowed up to 10% of the aneurysms per study to be fusiform or dissecting; up to 25% of aneurysms to be symptomatic, rather than ruptured; and up to 5% of the aneurysms to be included for retreatment. We excluded (1) animal studies; (2) studies reporting on aneurysms associated with arteriovenous malformations or in populations with specific diseases (such as collagen disorders, Moyamoya disease or syndrome, dwarfism, or autoimmune disorders); (3) studies in which previously ruptured aneurysms could not be distinguished from additional UIAs; and (4) studies in which treatment outcome was not reported separately for ruptured and unruptured aneurysms.

We predefined procedural clinical complications as treatment complications that resulted in transient or permanent morbidity or mortality and occurred during or within 30 days after the procedure. In our primary outcome measure, we included both intracranial clinical ischemic (transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke) and hemorrhagic (intracerebral hemorrhage, subdural or epidural hematoma, and intraoperative rupture) complications, as well as unspecified complications that resulted in a deterioration in clinical outcome (worsening of modified Rankin Scale or Glasgow Outcome Scale scores or designations as unfavorable or poor, if no standardized outcome scale was used). We defined the case-fatality rate as all deaths that occurred during or within 30 days after the procedure. The assessment of outcome was based on medical records (in the case of single-center or multicenter studies) or administrative data from databases using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition (ICD-9) and Tenth Edition (ICD-10) records to identify patients. For each study, we extracted details of the exact type of outcome and whether neurological deterioration was assessed with standardized outcome scales (modified Rankin Scale or Glasgow Outcome Scale).

One author (A.M.A.) performed the search and completed data extraction forms for full-text versions of the articles, including a quality assessment (Newcastle Ottawa Scale [NOS]).13 A second author (A.L.) validated 10% of the extraction forms. Since the level of agreement between these 2 readers was very high (100% for extraction of inclusion and exclusion criteria and 93% for the scoring of NOS forms), we refrained from double reading of the remainder of the studies. In cases of doubt, a consensus meeting was held with 2 other authors (M.D.I.V. and G.J.E.R.). If necessary, we asked authors for additional unpublished data.

For each included study we extracted (1) study characteristics: the enrollment period and midyear of treatment (median of the period during which the study was conducted), size of the study population, follow-up duration, outcome assessment (medical records vs ICD-based administrative databases), and scales used (modified Rankin Scale, Glasgow Outcome Scale, or others); (2) patient and aneurysm characteristics: the mean or median age of the cohort, sex distribution, aneurysm size (maximum dome diameter), and aneurysm location; (3) treatment characteristics: the modality used (EVT or NST; if EVT, standard coiling or advanced endovascular method), and (4) from studies reporting on risk factors, risk estimates per given risk factor and adjustment factors. We assessed the number of patients with clinical complications. If more than 1 category of morbidity was reported and there was no overlap, we extracted complications from both categories. Otherwise, we extracted complication data from the largest category reported. For case-fatality analyses, we assessed the number of patients who died during or within 30 days after the procedure.

Statistical Analysis

We performed separate analyses for EVT and NST and analyzed complication risk per patient. For each included study, we calculated the proportions of several patient, aneurysm, and treatment characteristics and assessed the occurrence of (1) complications causing any morbidity, including both fatal and nonfatal complications and (2) the occurrence of deaths separately, during or within 30 days after the procedure. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models for dichotomous data for the meta-analysis of proportions. Heterogeneity was classified as moderate (I2 = 25%-50%), substantial (I2 = 50%-75%) or considerable (I2 ≥ 75%). Owing to the degree of heterogeneity found, we used random-effect models for all analyses. We performed a sensitivity analysis according to the type of outcome (ischemic or hemorrhagic intracranial clinical complications). To assess potential sources of heterogeneity across studies, we performed predefined subgroup analyses according to methodological quality (high-quality studies defined as ≥7 points on the NOS) and use of advanced endovascular methods. We did additional subgroup analyses according to the method of outcome assessment (medical records vs ICD-based administrative databases, the use of standardized outcome scales [yes or no], region [Europe, North-America, Asia, or other], and midyear of treatment [periods divided into tertiles]). To further study the influence of time on outcome, we performed meta-regression analyses using the midyear of each study period to express the percentage change of the crude complication risk or case-fatality rate per year. For each of the studies reporting data on risk factors of complications, we obtained risk ratios (RRs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs or the raw patient numbers for each risk factor. We used the most adjusted estimate per study. If definitions or cutoff values of risk factors and treatment outcome allowed harmonization in comparable risk factor groups, we subsequently pooled ORs or RRs with a generic inverse variance–weighted, random-effects model.

Results

In total, 5423 articles were screened, of which 114 articles14-127 met the eligibility criteria for this review (eFigure 1 and eTables 2-4 in the Supplement). For EVT, we included 74 studies16-89 that included 71 819 patients with 73 066 aneurysms (eTable 3 in the Supplement) and for NST, we included 54 studies24,30,32,37,38,57,64,65,68,77,87,90-129 with a total of 34 614 patients with 35 197 aneurysms (eTable 4 in the Supplement). Fourteen24,30,32,37-39,45,47,57,64,65,68,77,87 of 114 studies (12.3%), with a total of 33 676 patients, reported on both EVT and NST.

Study Characteristics

Details of the included studies are given in Table 1 and eTables 3 and 4 in the Supplement. Most of the studies had a retrospective design (68 EVT studies16-32,34,36-70,72-83,85-87,128 [92%] with 71 098 patients; 53 NST studies18,24,30,32,37-39,47,57,64,65,68,77,87-117,119-127 [98%] with 34 543 patients) and were single-center cohorts (52 EVT studies16,19-23,25,27-29,32,34-36,38,39,41,44-48,50-52,54,56,59-61,63,64,66-68,70,72,74-83,85,86,129 [70%] with 14 444 patients; 40 NST studies18,32,38,39,47,57,64,65,68,77,87,88,91-95,98-100,102,103,105-114,116-127 [74%] with 9589 patients; Table 1). Of the 114 studies, 15 EVT studies16,20,31,35,44,45,50,55,62,64,69,71,73,75,84 (20%) with 10 412 patients and 11 NST studies64,77,95,102,110,112,113,118-120,127 (18%) with 4059 patients were of high methodological quality. Among 74 EVT studies, 5916,18-20,22,23,25,27-29,31-36,38,40-45,47-51,53-56,58,60-72,74-84,86,129 (80%) with 16 000 patients reported separately on intracranial ischemic complications and 5816,18-23,25-29,31-36,38,40-45,47-56,58,60-70,72,74,75,78-80,82-84,86,129 (78%) with 18 520 patients on hemorrhagic complications, and 1716,18,19,23,31,33,40,43,46,50,54,56,58,59,70,81,129 (23%) with 2248 patients reported on advanced endovascular methods only. Among 54 NST studies, ischemic complications were reported separately in 33 studies18,32,38,47,64,65,68,77,99,90,91,93-95,97,101,103-109,111,112,114,115,121-125,127 (61%) with 12 691 patients and hemorrhagic complications in 36 studies18,32,38,47,64,65,68,88,90,92-94,99,102-110,112-115,119-123,125 (67%) with 10 545 patients. Most studies originated from Asia (38 EVT studies18-23,25-27,29,35,36,38,39,41,42,45,47,48,54-56,59-63,67,69,70,73-76,78-80 [51%] with 18 942 patients and 29 NST studies18,38,39,47,88,91-94,99,100,102,105,106,108-114,118-122,125,127 [54%] with 7870 patients) and North America (25 EVT studies1,4,11,16,22,25-28,33,41,47,48,53,57-59,61-63,130-134 [34%] with 51 296 patients and 15 NST studies24,30,32,37,57,65,77,87,89,90,96,101,115,117,124 [28%] with 25 247 patients). Data on patient and aneurysm characteristics were available for a subset of studies (Table 1).

Outcomes After EVT

The pooled crude procedural risk from EVT was 4.96% for any clinical complication (95% CI, 4.00%-6.12%; 74 studies16-87,128,129; 4995 complications; Table 2), 2.82% for ischemic complications (95% CI, 2.29%-3.47%; 59 studies16,18-20,22,23,25,27-29,31-36,38,40-45,47-51,53-56,58,60-72,74-84,86,129; 437 complications), and 0.90% for hemorrhagic complications (95% CI, 0.64%-1.27%; 58 studies16,18-23,25-29,31-36,38,40-45,47-56,58,60-70,72,74,75,78-80,82-84,86,129; 212 complications). The case-fatality rate was 0.30% (95% CI, 0.20%-0.40%; 71 studies16-56,58-84,86,87,129; 379 deaths).

Subgroup Analyses

Among 15 high-quality EVT studies,16,20,31,35,44,45,50,55,62,64,69,71,73,75,84 the complication risk was 4.30% (95% CI, 2.59%-7.07%; 445 complications; Table 2) and the case-fatality rate was 0.12% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.63%; 27 deaths; 14 studies). Among the 68 studies16,18-29,31-36,38,39,41-48,50-56,58-64,66-86,129 basing outcome assessment on medical records, the complication risk was 4.42% (95% CI, 3.49%-5.59%; 1005 complications) vs 8.91% (95% CI, 6.38%-12.31%; 3990 complication) among the 10 studies17,24,30,37,40,49,57,65,87,128 using administrative ICD-coded databases. Complication risks differed according to region but did not change over time (Table 2). In 17 studies16,18,19,23,31,33,40,43,46,50,54,56,58,59,70,81,129 wherein all patients were treated with advanced endovascular methods, the pooled crude complication risk was 6.13% (95% CI, 4.29%-8.70%; 189 complications; Table 2) and the case-fatality rate was 0.43% (95% CI, 0.17%-1.10%; 14 deaths).

Meta-analyses of Risk Factor Data

Forty-three16,17,20,21,23-28,31,33-35,37,41,44-46,48-56,60,62,64,67,69,71,74-78,83,86,87,128 of 74 EVT studies (58%) reported on various risk factors for procedural clinical complications. An overview of all risk factors is given in eTable 5 in the Supplement, and pooled risk factors are summarized in Figure 1. Data on age, aneurysm size, and antiplatelet therapy could not be pooled (eFigures 2-4 in the Supplement). For 4809 female patients, the pooled OR for complications from 8 cohorts in 7 studies20,21,26,28,45,46,62 was 1.06 (95% CI, 1.01-1.11; eFigure 5 in the Supplement). The existence of a coagulopathy and a history of SAH were not associated with an increased complication risk (eFigures 6 and 7 in the Supplement). The associations between cardiovascular risk factors and complications are summarized in eFigures 8-12 in the Supplement. Patients with diabetes (4 cohorts from 3 studies20,26,55; pooled OR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.05-3.13]), hyperlipidemia (4 cohorts from 3 studies20,26,49; pooled OR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.31-2.37]), and cardiac comorbidity (3 cohorts from 2 studies20,49; pooled OR, 2.27 [95% CI, 1.53-3.37]) were at increased risk of complications. A wide aneurysm neck (with a size of >4mm or a dome-to-neck ratio <1.5) was associated with an increased complication risk (5 cohorts from 4 studies20,26,69,75; pooled OR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.38-2.11]; eFigure 13 in the Supplement). Posterior circulation aneurysms were associated with an increased complication risk (6 studies26,45,55,62,64,69; pooled OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.15-1.74]; eFigure 14 in the Supplement), but aneurysms localized at other locations were not. For aneurysm multiplicity, the pooled OR for complications was 1.08 ([95% CI, 0.65-1.81]; 3 cohorts from 2 studies20,49; eFigure 15 in the Supplement). In total, 20 studies16,20,21,23,26,33,34,44-46,48,50,52,53,55,62,75,78,87 reported on advanced endovascular methods (eFigure 16 in the Supplement). The use of stents was associated with an increased complication risk (compared with no stent use; 2 studies26,62; pooled OR, 3.43 [95% CI, 1.45-8.09]), but no data on flow diverters could be meta-analyzed (eFigure 16 in the Supplement). Compared with standard coiling, the pooled OR for complications was 1.82 (5 studies45,46,48,53,55; 95% CI, 1.16-2.85) in stent-assisted coiling and 1.25 (3 studies45,55,75; 95% CI, 0.71-2.20) in balloon-assisted coiling.

Outcomes After NST

The pooled crude procedural risk from NST was 8.34% for any clinical complication (95% CI, 6.25%-11.10%; 54 studies18,24,30,32,37-39,47,57,64,65,68,77,87-127; 6501 complications; Table 3), 2.52% for ischemic complications (95% CI, 1.62%-3.91%; 33 studies18,32,38,47,64,65,68,88,90,91,93-95,97,101,103-109,111,112,114,115,121-125,127; 509 complications), and 1.23% for hemorrhagic complications (95% CI, 0.71%-2.15%; 36 studies18,32,38,47,64,65,68,88,90,92-94,99,102-110,112-115,119-123,125; 292 complications). The case-fatality rate was 0.10% (95% CI, 0.00%-0.20%; 49 studies18,24,30,32,37-39,47,64,65,68,77,87,88,91-100,102-117,119-127; 156 deaths).

Subgroup Analyses

In 11 NST studies of high methodological quality, the complication risk was 6.89% (95% CI, 3.80%-12.16%; 303 complications; Table 3) and the case-fatality rate was 0.30% (95% CI, 0.00%-0.94%; 11 studies64,77,95,102,110,112,113,118-120,127; 5 deaths). Among the 43 studies18,32,38,39,47,64,68,77,88,91-95,97-100,102-114,116-127 basing outcome assessment on medical records, the risk of complications was 6.43% (95% CI, 4.69%-8.75%; 761 complications) vs 20.38% (95% CI, 14.69%-27.56%; 5740 complications) among the 11 studies30,37,57,65,87,89,90,96,101,115 using ICD-coded databases. We found differences in complication risks according to region, with the highest complication risk in North America (15 studies24,30,32,37,57,65,77,87,89,90,96,101,115,117,124; pooled crude risk 18.41% [95% CI, 13.85%-24.05%]; 5851 complications; including all 11 ICD-based studies24,30,37,57,65,87,89,90,96,101,115). Complication risk decreased over time from 11.65% (95% CI, 7.62%-17.41%; 3791 complications; Table 3) in the period 2001 through 2007 (18 studies24,37,38,64,65,77,87,103,104,107,115,117,120,123-127) to 5.26% (95% CI, 2.57%-10.44%; 602 complications) in the period 2011 through 2014 (15 studies18,30,32,39,88,93,97,100,105,110-114,118). Case-fatality risks did not change over time (Table 3).

Meta-analyses of Risk Factor Data

Twenty-six24,37,65,77,87,89,91,95,96,99,101,102,104,106,108,110,112,113,115-120,125-127 of 54 NST studies (48%) reported on various risk factors for procedural clinical complications. A summary of all risk factors is given in eTable 5 in the Supplement, and the pooled risk factors are summarized in Figure 2. We did not pool data for aneurysm size and antiplatelet therapy (eFigures 3 and 4 in the Supplement). Ten studies reported on age: 764,95,102,112,113,119,126 reported on age as a continuous variable (OR for complications per year increase, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01-1.02]; eTable 5 in the Supplement) and 391,99,120 reported different age categories (not pooled; eFigure 2 in the Supplement). For 3383 female patients, the pooled OR for complications from 10 studies91,95,99,102,110,112,113,117,119,120 was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.32-0.85; eFigure 5 in the Supplement). The risk of complications was increased in patients with a coagulopathy (2 studies101,115; pooled OR, 2.14 [95% CI, 1.13-4.06]; eFigure 7 in the Supplement) and in those who used anticoagulation therapy (2 studies110,113; pooled OR, 6.36 [95% CI, 2.55-15.85]; eFigure 3 in the Supplement). We found several cardiovascular risk factors to be associated with an increased complication risk (eFigures 8-12 in the Supplement): smoking (5 studies64,91,101,108,119; pooled OR, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.36-2.79]), hypertension (5 studies64,91,101,108,119; pooled OR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.03-2.03]), diabetes (4 studies96,101,108,119; pooled OR, 2.38 [95% CI, 1.54-3.67]), and congestive heart failure (2 studies115,119; pooled OR, 2.71 [95% CI, 1.57-4.69]). Posterior circulation aneurysms were associated with an increased complication risk (pooled OR, 7.25 [95% CI, 3.70-14.20]; 3 studies64,104,112; eFigure 14 in the Supplement). For aneurysm calcification, the pooled OR for complications was 2.89 (95% CI, 1.35-6.18; 2 studies77,126; eFigure 17 in the Supplement).

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides risk estimates of clinical complications and case-fatality rates for current preventive EVT and NST of saccular UIAs and identifies several patient-associated, aneurysm-associated, and treatment-associated risk factors for both treatments. We found substantial differences in complication risks according to region and method of outcome assessment. For NST, the complication risks decrease over time, but this is not true for EVT. The use of advanced endovascular methods is associated with an increased risk of clinical complications.

Comparison With Previous Studies

The pooled crude risks of clinical complications from EVT we found are in line with risks found in previous EVT reviews.9,130,135 In contrast, the NST complication risks we found were slightly higher than reported in previous reviews.10,130 A potential explanation for this discrepancy is that, in contrast with previous NST reviews, we did not restrict inclusion criteria to studies reporting on permanent unfavorable outcomes but also included studies with nonpermanent complications and ICD-based administrative databases. In our subgroup analysis of studies basing outcome assessment on medical records, the NST complication risk was comparable with the risks found in previous NST reviews.10,130 The risks reported in ICD-coded databases were 2 to 3 times higher than in studies based on medical records. When interpreting these data, it should be kept in mind that all ICD-based studies were performed in North American hospitals, where correct listing of complications leads to higher reimbursement.136 On the other hand, most of the studies basing their outcome on medical records were single-center or multicenter studies in which the surgeon or interventionist performed the retrospective analyses themselves, which may result in underestimating complication risks. One previous NST review also found that the complication risk was higher in a subgroup of North American studies.9 The much lower complication risk in studies originating from Asia has not been reported before. One explanation for this lower risk may be differences in how complications are defined and recorded. Another one is that a higher treatment volume per hospital or surgeon or interventionist leads to more experience with preventive aneurysm treatment, resulting in lower rates of complications.

Previous reviews on EVT and NST included studies published between 1990 and 2011 and reported that complication risks decreased for both EVT and NST over time. Although we did not find significant time trends for EVT and NST for clinical complications and case-fatality rates in the period between 2001 and 2014, we did find that the NST complication risk decreased more than 50% between the periods 2001 to 2007 and 2011 to 2014 and that case-fatality rates were in general lower in the overall period we studied (2001-2014) compared with earlier periods studied in previous reviews (a decrease from 1.5%-2.0% to <0.5%).9,10,130,131,137 Unfortunately, we were unable to perform time-trend analyses for standard coiling and advanced endovascular methods separately.

We found that stenting and stent-assisted coiling were associated with an increased complication risk, but balloon-assisted coiling was not. One previous EVT review9 found that the use of flow diverters was associated with a higher risk of an unfavorable outcome. More recently, several reviews of nonrandomized comparisons have been published on the outcome of various advanced endovascular methods, most of them confirming an increased complication risk for advanced endovascular methods compared with standard coiling.131-133,138-140 However, most studies included in these reviews131-133,138-140 included a mixture of saccular and nonsaccular aneurysms, making them unsuitable for our current review, which focused on saccular UIAs. For this reason, we also excluded 11 studies on flow diverters at the full-article screening stage (eTable 2 in the Supplement).

Other risk factors studied in previous EVT reviews9,130,135 are increasing age, sex, aneurysm diameter, aneurysm location, and aneurysm neck size. None of these factors were found to be associated with an increased complication risk in these reviews, but risk factor data could only be studied from a small selection of articles.9,130,131,135 Separate reviews have been performed for subgroups of anterior and posterior circulation aneurysms.14,134 Previously identified risk factors for complications from NST are increasing age, aneurysm size, and posterior aneurysm location.10,132 None of the existing reviews included cardiovascular risk factors as potential determinants for procedural complications for EVT or NST.

Strengths

Our systematic review and meta-analysis has several strengths. To date, this work is the largest overview of UIA treatment outcomes, including data from more than 100 000 patients with treated saccular UIAs. This allowed us to study risk differences according to study design and region. Especially for EVT, we were now able to further explore the association between the use of various advanced endovascular methods and risk of complications. A second strength is that we also studied risk factor data in detail. This enabled us to add several new aneurysm- and treatment-related risk factors to the already known risk factors from the literature. In addition, this is the first joint endovascular and neurosurgical meta-analysis to give a complete overview of the impact of various cardiovascular risk factors on both treatments.

Limitations

Some limitations need to be addressed. First, the complication risks for EVT and NST should not be compared because of the nonrandomized nature of the included studies, which makes them prone to various sources of bias, such as selection bias. So far, only 1 randomized clinical trial15 has been published on EVT vs NST in patients with saccular UIAs, which assessed permanent morbidity at 1 year as a secondary outcome. Second, only approximately 20% of the included studies were of high methodological quality. Third, outcome definitions were very heterogeneous across studies, and we were not able to disentangle transient and permanent clinical complications. This heterogeneity underscores the need of cautious interpretation of our meta-analyses of all clinical complications combined. Fourth, a part of the included studies reported very limited data on patient and aneurysm characteristics. As a result, we were limited in our analyses. Fifth, the finding that the complication risk is higher in subgroups of patients treated by NST or advanced endovascular methods may be a reflection of the complex nature of aneurysms treated by such treatment modalities. Finally, in our meta-analysis of risk factors for procedural clinical complications, we relied on the definitions and categorizations of risk factors and reference groups given in the original articles. For several risk factors, such as age and advanced endovascular methods, this meant that studies were noncomparable and could not be pooled or only a subset could be pooled.

Conclusions

This review provides precise estimates of procedural clinical complications and case-fatality rates from preventive EVT or NST of UIAs. The complication risk varies according to several patient-associated, aneurysm-associated, and treatment-associated risk factors. Most published observational data on preventive UIA treatment remain of poor methodological quality, with sensitivity particularly dependent on detailed and standardized recording of procedural clinical complications, method of outcome assessment and region. For clinical practice, the data from this study can be used to estimate the procedural complication risk from preventive UIA treatment according to patient-associated, aneurysm-associated, and treatment-associated characteristics, which need to be balanced against the risk of rupture when preventive aneurysm treatment is considered.

Through future research, our work can be further extended by meta-analysis of individual patient data from studies of high methodological quality. We underscore the need for detailed and standardized recording of clinical complications and treatment risk factors in a prospective setting to allow for multivariable analyses assessing the independent contribution of the different risk factors. With such data available, scores can be developed to prognosticate individualized procedural complication risks according to each person’s risk factor profile.

Back to top
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: November 2, 2018.

Corresponding Author: Annemijn M. Algra, MD, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht 3584 CX, the Netherlands (a.m.algra-3@umcutrecht.nl).

Published Online: December 28, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4165

Author Contributions: Dr Rinkel had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Algra, Vergouwen, Greving, Rinkel.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Algra, Vergouwen, Greving, Rinkel.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Algra, Greving.

Obtained funding: Algra.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Lindgren, Greving.

Study supervision: Vergouwen, Greving, Rinkel.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Algra received a specialist-in-training grant from the Dutch Heart Foundation (grant 2016T023). Dr Vergouwen is co–principal investigator of the PROTECT-U trial (NCT03063541), which is funded by the Dr Rolf Schwiete Foundation (grant 19/2016). These funding organizations had no role in any of the above-mentioned author contributions. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant 2016T023 from the Dutch Heart Foundation (Dr Algra).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: Dr Algra used a spreadsheet to create forest plots, which was provided by Sergei A. Gutnikov, MD, DPhil, Stroke Prevention Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, England. He was not compensated for this contribution.

References
1.
Vlak  MH, Algra  A, Brandenburg  R, Rinkel  GJ.  Prevalence of unruptured intracranial aneurysms, with emphasis on sex, age, comorbidity, country, and time period: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Lancet Neurol. 2011;10(7):626-636. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70109-0PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Gabriel  RA, Kim  H, Sidney  S,  et al.  Ten-year detection rate of brain arteriovenous malformations in a large, multiethnic, defined population.  Stroke. 2010;41(1):21-26. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.566018PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Brown  RD  Jr, Broderick  JP.  Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: epidemiology, natural history, management options, and familial screening.  Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(4):393-404. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70015-8PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Nieuwkamp  DJ, Setz  LE, Algra  A, Linn  FH, de Rooij  NK, Rinkel  GJ.  Changes in case fatality of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage over time, according to age, sex, and region: a meta-analysis.  Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(7):635-642. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70126-7PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Etminan  N, Rinkel  GJ.  Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: development, rupture and preventive management.  Nat Rev Neurol. 2016;12(12):699-713. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2016.150PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Greving  JP, Wermer  MJ, Brown  RD  Jr,  et al.  Development of the PHASES score for prediction of risk of rupture of intracranial aneurysms: a pooled analysis of six prospective cohort studies.  Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(1):59-66. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70263-1PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Tominari  S, Morita  A, Ishibashi  T,  et al; Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysm Study Japan Investigators.  Prediction model for 3-year rupture risk of unruptured cerebral aneurysms in Japanese patients.  Ann Neurol. 2015;77(6):1050-1059. doi:10.1002/ana.24400PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Etminan  N, Brown  RD  Jr, Beseoglu  K,  et al.  The unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: a multidisciplinary consensus.  Neurology. 2015;85(10):881-889. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000001891PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Naggara  ON, Lecler  A, Oppenheim  C, Meder  JF, Raymond  J.  Endovascular treatment of intracranial unruptured aneurysms: a systematic review of the literature on safety with emphasis on subgroup analyses.  Radiology. 2012;263(3):828-835. doi:10.1148/radiol.12112114PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Kotowski  M, Naggara  O, Darsaut  TE,  et al.  Safety and occlusion rates of surgical treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature from 1990 to 2011.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013;84(1):42-48. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2011-302068PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Moher  D, Liberati  A, Tetzlaff  J, Altman  DG; PRISMA Group.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.  PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Stroup  DF, Berlin  JA, Morton  SC,  et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting: Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.  JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012. doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Wells  GA, Shea  B, O’Connell  D,  et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale NOS for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Published 2018. Accessed November 15, 2018.
14.
Petr  O, Sejkorová  A, Bradáč  O, Brinjikji  W, Lanzino  G.  Safety and efficacy of treatment strategies for posterior inferior cerebellar artery aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016;158(12):2415-2428. doi:10.1007/s00701-016-2965-3PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Darsaut  TE, Findlay  JM, Magro  E,  et al.  Surgical clipping or endovascular coiling for unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a pragmatic randomised trial.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2017;88(8):663-668. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2016-315433PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Consoli  A, Vignoli  C, Renieri  L,  et al.  Assisted coiling of saccular wide-necked unruptured intracranial aneurysms: stent versus balloon.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2016;8(1):52-57. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011466PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Fennell  VS, Martirosyan  NL, Palejwala  SK, Lemole  GM  Jr, Dumont  TM.  Morbidity and mortality of patients with endovascularly treated intracerebral aneurysms: does physician specialty matter?  J Neurosurg. 2016;124(1):13-17. doi:10.3171/2014.11.JNS141030PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Jeon  HJ, Kim  SY, Park  KY, Lee  JW, Huh  SK.  Ideal clipping methods for unruptured middle cerebral artery bifurcation aneurysms based on aneurysmal neck classification.  Neurosurg Rev. 2016;39(2):215-223. doi:10.1007/s10143-015-0671-xPubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Ji  W, Kang  H, Liu  A,  et al.  Stent-assisted coiling of very small wide-necked intracranial aneurysms: complications, anatomical results and clinical outcomes.  Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2016;50(6):410-417.PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Ji  W, Liu  A, Lv  X,  et al.  Risk score for neurological complications after endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  Stroke. 2016;47(4):971-978. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.012097PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Lee  KM, Jo  KI, Jeon  P, Kim  KH, Kim  J-S, Hong  S-C.  Predictor and prognosis of procedural rupture during coil embolization for unruptured intracranial aneurysm.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2016;59(1):6-10. doi:10.3340/jkns.2016.59.1.6PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Park  JC, Lee  DH, Kim  JK,  et al.  Microembolism after endovascular coiling of unruptured cerebral aneurysms: incidence and risk factors.  J Neurosurg. 2016;124(3):777-783. doi:10.3171/2015.3.JNS142835PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Park  KY, Kim  BM, Kim  DJ.  Comparison between balloon-assisted and stent-assisted technique for treatment of unruptured internal carotid artery aneurysms.  Neurointervention. 2016;11(2):99-104. doi:10.5469/neuroint.2016.11.2.99PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Rozenfeld  MN, Ansari  SA, Mohan  P, Shaibani  A, Russell  EJ, Hurley  MC.  Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease and intracranial aneurysms: is there an increased risk of treatment?  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(2):290-293. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4490PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Shimizu  K, Imamura  H, Mineharu  Y, Adachi  H, Sakai  C, Sakai  N.  Endovascular treatment of unruptured Paraclinoid aneurysms: single-center experience with 400 cases and literature review.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(4):679-685. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4577PubMedGoogle Scholar
26.
Sim  SY, Song  J, Oh  S-Y,  et al.  incidence and characteristics of remote intracerebral hemorrhage after endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  World Neurosurg. 2016;95:335-340. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.08.057PubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
Son  Y-J, Kwon  O-K, Hwang  G, Park  NM, Oh  CW, Bang  JS.  Major recanalization occurs more often in young patients after unruptured aneurysm coil embolization.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016;158(3):551-556. doi:10.1007/s00701-015-2668-1PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
Stetler  WR  Jr, Griauzde  J, Saadeh  Y,  et al.  Is intensive care monitoring necessary after coil embolization of unruptured intracranial aneurysms?  J Neurointerv Surg. 2017;9(8):756-760.PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Zheng  Y, Liu  Y, Leng  B, Xu  F, Tian  Y.  Periprocedural complications associated with endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms in 1764 cases.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2016;8(2):152-157. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011459PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Bekelis  K, Missios  S, Coy  S, Singer  RJ, MacKenzie  TA.  New York state: comparison of treatment outcomes for unruptured cerebral aneurysms using an instrumental variable analysis.  J Am Heart Assoc. 2015;4(7):4. doi:10.1161/JAHA.115.002190PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Di Maria  F, Pistocchi  S, Clarençon  F,  et al.  Flow diversion versus standard endovascular techniques for the treatment of unruptured carotid-ophthalmic aneurysms.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(12):2325-2330. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4437PubMedGoogle Scholar
32.
Duan  Y, Blackham  K, Nelson  J, Selman  W, Bambakidis  N.  Analysis of short-term total hospital costs and current primary cost drivers of coiling versus clipping for unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2015;7(8):614-618. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011249PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
Gentric  JC, Biondi  A, Piotin  M,  et al.  Balloon remodeling may improve angiographic results of stent-assisted coiling of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  Neurosurgery. 2015;76(4):441-445. doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000639PubMedGoogle Scholar
34.
Ghinda  D, Dos Santos  MP, Sabri  A, Iancu  D, Lum  C, Lesiuk  HJ.  Clinical and angiographic outcomes of stent-assisted coiling of intracranial aneurysms.  Interv Neuroradiol. 2015;21(2):146-154. doi:10.1177/1591019915582152PubMedGoogle Scholar
35.
Hwang  G, Huh  W, Lee  JS,  et al.  Standard vs modified antiplatelet preparation for preventing thromboembolic events in patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity undergoing coil embolization for an unruptured intracranial aneurysm: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA Neurol. 2015;72(7):764-772. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2015.0654PubMedGoogle Scholar
36.
Ishihara  H, Ishihara  S, Niimi  J,  et al.  Risk factors for coil protrusion into the parent artery and associated thrombo-embolic events following unruptured cerebral aneurysm embolization.  Interv Neuroradiol. 2015;21(2):178-183. doi:10.1177/1591019915582375PubMedGoogle Scholar
37.
Jalbert  JJ, Isaacs  AJ, Kamel  H, Sedrakyan  A.  Clipping and coiling of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA) among Medicare beneficiaries, 2000-2010.  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24(suppl 1):298-299.Google Scholar
38.
Jang  EW, Kim  YB, Chung  J, Suh  SH, Hong  CK, Joo  JY.  Clinical risk factors affecting procedure-related major neurological complications in unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  Yonsei Med J. 2015;56(4):987-992. doi:10.3349/ymj.2015.56.4.987PubMedGoogle Scholar
39.
Kim  M, Park  J, Lee  J.  Comparative cost analysis for surgical and endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms in South Korea.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2015;57(6):455-459. doi:10.3340/jkns.2015.57.6.455PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
McDonald  RJ, McDonald  JS, Kallmes  DF, Lanzino  G, Cloft  HJ.  Periprocedural safety of pipeline therapy for unruptured cerebral aneurysms: analysis of 279 patients in a multihospital database.  Interv Neuroradiol. 2015;21(1):6-10. doi:10.1177/1591019915576289PubMedGoogle Scholar
41.
Oh  S-Y, Lee  KS, Kim  B-S, Shin  YS.  Management strategy of surgical and endovascular treatment of unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms based on the location of aneurysms.  Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015;128:72-77. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.11.008PubMedGoogle Scholar
42.
Oishi  H, Yamamoto  M, Nonaka  S,  et al.  Treatment results of endosaccular coil embolization of asymptomatic unruptured intracranial aneurysms in elderly patients.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2015;7(9):660-665. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011305PubMedGoogle Scholar
43.
Poncyljusz  W, Biliński  P, Safranow  K,  et al.  The LVIS/LVIS Jr. stents in the treatment of wide-neck intracranial aneurysms: multicentre registry.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2015;7(7):524-529. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011229PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Poncyljusz  W, Zarzycki  A, Zwarzany  Ł, Burke  TH.  Bare platinum coils vs. HydroCoil in the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms—a single center randomized controlled study.  Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(2):261-265. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.11.002PubMedGoogle Scholar
45.
Song  J, Kim  B-S, Shin  YS.  Treatment outcomes of unruptured intracranial aneurysm; experience of 1,231 consecutive aneurysms.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2015;157(8):1303-1310. doi:10.1007/s00701-015-2460-2PubMedGoogle Scholar
46.
Starke  RM, Durst  CR, Evans  A,  et al.  Endovascular treatment of unruptured wide-necked intracranial aneurysms: comparison of dual microcatheter technique and stent-assisted coil embolization.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2015;7(4):256-261. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011159PubMedGoogle Scholar
47.
Suzuki  M, Yoneda  H, Ishihara  H,  et al.  Adverse events after unruptured cerebral aneurysm treatment: a single-center experience with clipping/coil embolization combined units.  J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;24(1):223-231. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.08.018PubMedGoogle Scholar
48.
Yang  H, Sun  Y, Jiang  Y,  et al.  Comparison of stent-assisted coiling vs coiling alone in 563 intracranial aneurysms: safety and efficacy at a high-volume center.  Neurosurgery. 2015;77(2):241-247. doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000765PubMedGoogle Scholar
49.
Bekelis  K, Missios  S, Mackenzie  TA, Fischer  A, Labropoulos  N, Eskey  C.  A predictive model of outcomes during cerebral aneurysm coiling.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2014;6(5):342-348. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2013-010815PubMedGoogle Scholar
50.
Chalouhi  N, Starke  RM, Yang  S,  et al.  Extending the indications of flow diversion to small, unruptured, saccular aneurysms of the anterior circulation.  Stroke. 2014;45(1):54-58. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.003038PubMedGoogle Scholar
51.
Delgado Almandoz  JE, Kadkhodayan  Y, Crandall  BM, Scholz  JM, Fease  JL, Tubman  DE.  Variability in initial response to standard clopidogrel therapy, delayed conversion to clopidogrel hyper-response, and associated thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications in patients undergoing endovascular treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2014;6(10):767-773. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2013-010976PubMedGoogle Scholar
52.
Frontera  JA, Moatti  J, de los Reyes  KM,  et al.  Safety and cost of stent-assisted coiling of unruptured intracranial aneurysms compared with coiling or clipping.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2014;6(1):65-71. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2012-010544PubMedGoogle Scholar
53.
Hetts  SW, Turk  A, English  JD,  et al; Matrix and Platinum Science Trial Investigators.  Stent-assisted coiling versus coiling alone in unruptured intracranial aneurysms in the matrix and platinum science trial: safety, efficacy, and mid-term outcomes.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(4):698-705. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3755PubMedGoogle Scholar
54.
Kim  B, Kim  K, Jeon  P,  et al.  Thromboembolic complications in patients with clopidogrel resistance after coil embolization for unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(9):1786-1792. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3955PubMedGoogle Scholar
55.
Kwon  SC, Kwon  O-K; Korean Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysm Coiling (KUCAC) Investigators.  Endovascular coil embolization of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a Korean multicenter study.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2014;156(5):847-854. doi:10.1007/s00701-014-2033-9PubMedGoogle Scholar
56.
Takigawa  T, Suzuki  K, Sugiura  Y,  et al.  Thromboembolic events associated with single balloon-, double balloon-, and stent-assisted coil embolization of asymptomatic unruptured cerebral aneurysms: evaluation with diffusion-weighted MR imaging.  Neuroradiology. 2014;56(12):1079-1086. doi:10.1007/s00234-014-1421-4PubMedGoogle Scholar
57.
Zacharia  BE, Bruce  SS, Carpenter  AM,  et al.  Variability in outcome after elective cerebral aneurysm repair in high-volume academic medical centers.  Stroke. 2014;45(5):1447-1452. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.004412PubMedGoogle Scholar
58.
Gentric  JC, Biondi  A, Piotin  M,  et al; French SENAT Investigators.  Safety and efficacy of neuroform for treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a prospective, consecutive, French multicentric study.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(6):1203-1208. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3379PubMedGoogle Scholar
59.
Hwang  S-K, Kim  S-H.  Endovascular coil embolization assisted with enterprise stent for wide-necked unruptured intracranial aneurysms: Safety and efficacy.  Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013;36(suppl 1):64.Google Scholar
60.
Ishibashi  T, Murayama  Y, Saguchi  T,  et al.  Justification of unruptured intracranial aneurysm repair: a single-center experience.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(8):1600-1605. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3470PubMedGoogle Scholar
61.
Jo  KI, Yeon  JY, Kim  KH, Jeon  P, Kim  J-S, Hong  S-C.  Predictors of thromboembolism during coil embolization in patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysm.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2013;155(6):1101-1106. doi:10.1007/s00701-013-1706-0PubMedGoogle Scholar
62.
Kang  DH, Kim  BM, Kim  DJ,  et al.  MR-DWI-positive lesions and symptomatic ischemic complications after coiling of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  Stroke. 2013;44(3):789-791. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.669853PubMedGoogle Scholar
63.
Kim  MJ, Lim  YC, Oh  S-Y, Kim  BM, Kim  B-S, Shin  YS.  Thromboembolic events associated with electrolytic detachment of Guglielmi detachable coils and target coils: comparison with use of diffusion-weighted MR imaging.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2013;54(1):19-24. doi:10.3340/jkns.2013.54.1.19PubMedGoogle Scholar
64.
Kunz  M, Bakhshai  Y, Zausinger  S,  et al.  Interdisciplinary treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: impact of intraprocedural rupture and ischemia in 563 aneurysms.  J Neurol. 2013;260(5):1304-1313. doi:10.1007/s00415-012-6795-9PubMedGoogle Scholar
65.
Lad  SP, Babu  R, Rhee  MS,  et al.  Long-term economic impact of coiling vs clipping for unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  Neurosurgery. 2013;72(6):1000-1011. doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000429284.91142.56PubMedGoogle Scholar
66.
Moscato  G, Cirillo  L, Dall’olio  M, Princiotta  C, Simonetti  L, Leonardi  M.  Management of unruptured brain aneurysms: retrospective analysis of a single centre experience.  Neuroradiol J. 2013;26(3):315-319. doi:10.1177/197140091302600311PubMedGoogle Scholar
67.
Nishikawa  Y, Satow  T, Takagi  T, Murao  K, Miyamoto  S, Iihara  K.  Efficacy and safety of single versus dual antiplatelet therapy for coiling of unruptured aneurysms.  J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013;22(5):650-655. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2012.02.008PubMedGoogle Scholar
68.
Sharma  M, Brown  B, Madhugiri  V,  et al.  Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: comparison of perioperative complications, discharge disposition, outcome, and effect of calcification, between clipping and coiling: a single institution experience.  Neurol India. 2013;61(3):270-276. doi:10.4103/0028-3886.115067PubMedGoogle Scholar
69.
Shigematsu  T, Fujinaka  T, Yoshimine  T,  et al; JR-NET Investigators.  Endovascular therapy for asymptomatic unruptured intracranial aneurysms: JR-NET and JR-NET2 findings.  Stroke. 2013;44(10):2735-2742. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000609PubMedGoogle Scholar
70.
Wang  K, Sun  Y, Li  A-M.  Peri-procedural morbidity and mortality associated with stent-assisted coiling for intracranial aneurysms.  Interv Neuroradiol. 2013;19(1):43-48. doi:10.1177/159101991301900106PubMedGoogle Scholar
71.
Hill  MD, Martin  RH, Mikulis  D,  et al; ENACT trial investigators.  Safety and efficacy of NA-1 in patients with iatrogenic stroke after endovascular aneurysm repair (ENACT): a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.  Lancet Neurol. 2012;11(11):942-950. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70225-9PubMedGoogle Scholar
72.
Khosla  A, Brinjikji  W, Cloft  H, Lanzino  G, Kallmes  DF.  Age-related complications following endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33(5):953-957. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2881PubMedGoogle Scholar
73.
Kim  BM, Kim  DJ, Jeon  P,  et al.  Endovascular embolization of intracranial aneurysms using bare platinum Axium™ detachable coils: immediate and short-term follow-up results from a multicenter registry.  Neurointervention. 2012;7(2):85-92. doi:10.5469/neuroint.2012.7.2.85PubMedGoogle Scholar
74.
Matsumoto  Y, Kondo  R, Matsumori  Y, Shimizu  H, Takahashi  A, Tominaga  T.  Antiplatelet therapy for prevention of thromboembolic complications associated with coil embolization of unruptured cerebral aneurysms.  Drugs R D. 2012;12(1):1-7. doi:10.2165/11599070-000000000-00000PubMedGoogle Scholar
75.
Oishi  H, Yamamoto  M, Shimizu  T, Yoshida  K, Arai  H.  Endovascular therapy of 500 small asymptomatic unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33(5):958-964. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2858PubMedGoogle Scholar
76.
Park  SH, Kim  YB, Huh  SK.  Effect of premedication method and drug resistance of antiplatelet agent on periprocedural thromboembolic events during coil embolization of an unruptured intracranial aneurysm.  J Cerebrovasc Endovasc Neurosurg. 2012;14(3):148-156. doi:10.7461/jcen.2012.14.3.148PubMedGoogle Scholar
77.
Bhatia  S, Sekula  RF, Quigley  MR, Williams  R, Ku  A.  Role of calcification in the outcomes of treated, unruptured, intracerebral aneurysms.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2011;153(4):905-911. doi:10.1007/s00701-010-0846-8PubMedGoogle Scholar
78.
Hwang  G, Park  H, Bang  JS,  et al.  Comparison of 2-year angiographic outcomes of stent- and nonstent-assisted coil embolization in unruptured aneurysms with an unfavorable configuration for coiling.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(9):1707-1710. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2592PubMedGoogle Scholar
79.
Hwang  S-K, Hwang  G, Oh  CW,  et al.  Endovascular treatment for unruptured intracranial aneurysms in elderly patients: single-center report.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(6):1087-1090. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2458PubMedGoogle Scholar
80.
Kim  BM, Kim  DI, Park  SI, Kim  DJ, Suh  SH, Won  YS.  Coil embolization of unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms.  Neurosurgery. 2011;68(2):346-353. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182035fdcPubMedGoogle Scholar
81.
Lessne  ML, Shah  P, Alexander  MJ,  et al.  Patient factors associated with thromboembolic complications after neuroforma stent assisted treatment of cerebral aneurysms: the Duke Cerebrovascular Center experience in 235 patients with 274 stents.  J Neurosurg. 2011;115:A458-A459.Google Scholar
82.
Loumiotis  I, Brown  RD  Jr, Vine  R, Cloft  HJ, Kallmes  DF, Lanzino  G.  Small (< 10-mm) incidentally found intracranial aneurysms, part 2: treatment recommendations, natural history, complications, and short-term outcome in 212 consecutive patients.  Neurosurg Focus. 2011;31(6):E4. doi:10.3171/2011.9.FOCUS11237PubMedGoogle Scholar
83.
Ogilvy  CS, Yang  X, Jamil  OA,  et al.  Neurointerventional procedures for unruptured intracranial aneurysms under procedural sedation and local anesthesia: a large-volume, single-center experience—clinical article.  J Neurosurg. 2011;114(1):120-128. doi:10.3171/2010.3.JNS091384PubMedGoogle Scholar
84.
Raymond  J, Darsaut  TE, Molyneux  AJ; TEAM collaborative Group.  A trial on unruptured intracranial aneurysms (the TEAM trial): results, lessons from a failure and the necessity for clinical care trials.  Trials. 2011;12:64. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-64PubMedGoogle Scholar
85.
Schubert  GA, Thomé  C, Seiz  M, Douville  C, Eskridge  J.  Microembolic signal monitoring after coiling of unruptured cerebral aneurysms: an observational analysis of 123 cases.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(8):1386-1391. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2507PubMedGoogle Scholar
86.
Spiotta  AM, Bhalla  T, Hussain  MS,  et al.  An analysis of inflation times during balloon-assisted aneurysm coil embolization and ischemic complications.  Stroke. 2011;42(4):1051-1055. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.602276PubMedGoogle Scholar
87.
Zacharia  BE, Ducruet  AF, Hickman  ZL,  et al.  Technological advances in the management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms fail to improve outcome in New York state.  Stroke. 2011;42(10):2844-2849. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.619767PubMedGoogle Scholar
88.
Ahn  JY, Kim  ST, Yi  KC, Lee  WH, Paeng  SH, Jeong  YG.  Superficial temporal artery-sparing mini-pterional approach for cerebral aneurysm surgery.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2017;60(1):8-14. doi:10.3340/jkns.2016.0707.004PubMedGoogle Scholar
89.
Bekelis  K, Gottlieb  D, Bovis  G,  et al.  Unruptured cerebral aneurysm clipping: association of combined open and endovascular expertise with outcomes.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2016;8(9):977-981. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-011986PubMedGoogle Scholar
90.
Bekelis  K, Missios  S, MacKenzie  TA, Labropoulos  N, Roberts  DW.  A predictive model of hospitalization cost after cerebral aneurysm clipping.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2016;8(3):316-322. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011575PubMedGoogle Scholar
91.
Byoun  HS, Bang  JS, Oh  CW,  et al.  The incidence of and risk factors for ischemic complications after microsurgical clipping of unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms and the efficacy of intraoperative monitoring of somatosensory evoked potentials: a retrospective study.  Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;151:128-135. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.10.008PubMedGoogle Scholar
92.
Chen  SF, Kato  Y, Kumar  A,  et al.  Intraoperative rupture in the surgical treatment of patients with intracranial aneurysms.  J Clin Neurosci. 2016;34:63-69. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2016.01.045PubMedGoogle Scholar
93.
Choi  Y-J, Son  W, Park  K-S, Park  J.  Intradural procedural time to assess technical difficulty of superciliary keyhole and pterional approaches for unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2016;59(6):564-569. doi:10.3340/jkns.2016.59.6.564PubMedGoogle Scholar
94.
Choi  JH, Park  JE, Kim  MJ, Kim  BS, Shin  YS.  Aneurysmal neck clipping as the primary treatment option for both ruptured and unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2016;59(3):269-275. doi:10.3340/jkns.2016.59.3.269PubMedGoogle Scholar
95.
Jabbarli  R, Wrede  KH, Pierscianek  D,  et al.  Outcome after clipping of unruptured intracranial aneurysms depends on caseload.  World Neurosurg. 2016;89:666-671.e1. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.12.043PubMedGoogle Scholar
96.
Kerezoudis  P, McCutcheon  BA, Murphy  M,  et al.  Predictors of 30-day perioperative morbidity and mortality of unruptured intracranial aneurysm surgery.  Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;149:75-80. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.07.027PubMedGoogle Scholar
97.
Kockro  RA, Killeen  T, Ayyad  A,  et al.  Aneurysm surgery with pre-operative 3D planning in a virtual reality environment: technique and outcome analysis.  World Neurosurg. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.08.124Google Scholar
98.
Koźba-Gosztyła  M, Czapiga  B, Jarmundowicz  W, Tomiałowicz  Ł.  Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: surgery still safe as a treatment option.  Adv Clin Exp Med. 2016;25(5):911-916. doi:10.17219/acem/61803PubMedGoogle Scholar
99.
Kwon  M-Y, Kim  C-H, Lee  C-Y.  Predicting factors of chronic subdural hematoma following surgical clipping in unruptured and ruptured intracranial aneurysm.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2016;59(5):458-465. doi:10.3340/jkns.2016.59.5.458PubMedGoogle Scholar
100.
Matsukawa  H, Tanikawa  R, Kamiyama  H,  et al.  Risk factors for visual impairments in patients with unruptured intradural paraclinoid aneurysms treated by neck clipping without bypass surgery.  World Neurosurg. 2016;91:183-189. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.04.004PubMedGoogle Scholar
101.
McCutcheon  BA, Kerezoudis  P, Porter  AL,  et al.  Coma and stroke following surgical treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysm: an American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program study.  World Neurosurg. 2016;91:272-278. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.04.039PubMedGoogle Scholar
102.
Park  J, Cho  JH, Goh  DH, Kang  DH, Shin  IH, Hamm  IS.  Postoperative subdural hygroma and chronic subdural hematoma after unruptured aneurysm surgery: age, sex, and aneurysm location as independent risk factors.  J Neurosurg. 2016;124(2):310-317. doi:10.3171/2015.1.JNS14309PubMedGoogle Scholar
103.
Steklacova  A, Bradac  O, Charvat  F, De Lacy  P, Benes  V.  “Clip first” policy in management of intracranial MCA aneurysms: single-centre experience with a systematic review of literature.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016;158(3):533-546. doi:10.1007/s00701-015-2687-yPubMedGoogle Scholar
104.
Bruneau  M, Amin-Hanjani  S, Koroknay-Pal  P,  et al.  Surgical clipping of very small unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a multicenter international study.  Neurosurgery. 2016;78(1):47-52. doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000991PubMedGoogle Scholar
105.
Chen  SF, Kato  Y, Sinha  R,  et al.  Surgical treatment of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(1):69-72. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2014.05.048PubMedGoogle Scholar
106.
Chung  J, Hong  C-K, Shim  YS,  et al.  Microsurgical clipping of unruptured middle cerebral artery bifurcation aneurysms: incidence of and risk factors for procedure-related complications.  World Neurosurg. 2015;83(5):666-672. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.01.023PubMedGoogle Scholar
107.
Hallout  S.  Surgical treatment of middle cerebral artery aneurysms without using indocyanine green videoangiography assistance: retrospective monocentric study of 263 clipped aneurysms.  World Neurosurg. 2015;84(4):972-977. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.05.069PubMedGoogle Scholar
108.
Jo  K-I, Kim  HR, Yeon  JY, Hong  S-C, Kim  J-S.  Treatment outcomes of surgical clipping for unruptured anterior circulation aneurysm-single institute experiences in the era of neurophysiologic monitoring and endovascular treatment.  Neurosurg Rev. 2015;38(4):677-682. doi:10.1007/s10143-015-0642-2PubMedGoogle Scholar
109.
Kim  SY, Jeon  HJ, Ihm  EH, Park  KY, Lee  JW, Huh  SK.  Microsurgical efficacy and safety of a right-hemispheric approach for unruptured anterior communicating artery aneurysms.  Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015;137:62-66. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.06.009PubMedGoogle Scholar
110.
Lee  JY, Seo  JH, Cho  YD, Kang  H-S, Han  MH.  Endovascular treatment of 429 anterior communicating artery aneurysms using bare-platinum coils: clinical and radiologic outcomes at the long-term follow-up.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2015;57(3):159-166. doi:10.3340/jkns.2015.57.3.159PubMedGoogle Scholar
111.
Sakarunchai  I, Kato  Y, Yamada  Y, Inamasu  J.  Ischemic event and risk factors of embolic stroke in atherosclerotic cerebral aneurysm patients treated with a new clipping technique.  J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;24(11):2497-2507. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.06.032PubMedGoogle Scholar
112.
Song  JH, Chang  IB, Ahn  JH, Kim  JH, Oh  JK, Cho  BM.  Angiographic results of wide-necked intracranial aneurysms treated with coil embolization: a single center experience.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2015;57(4):250-257. doi:10.3340/jkns.2015.57.4.250PubMedGoogle Scholar
113.
Yagi  K, Irie  S, Inagaki  T,  et al.  Intraoperative arachnoid plasty has possibility to prevent chronic subdural hematoma after surgery for unruptured cerebral aneurysms.  Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2015;55(6):493-497. doi:10.2176/nmc.oa.2014-0455PubMedGoogle Scholar
114.
Yamada  Y, Kato  Y, Ishihara  K,  et al.  Role of endoscopy in multi-modality monitoring during aneurysm surgery: a single center experience with 175 consecutive unruptured aneurysms.  Asian J Neurosurg. 2015;10(1):52. doi:10.4103/1793-5482.151518PubMedGoogle Scholar
115.
Bekelis  K, Missios  S, MacKenzie  TA,  et al.  Predicting inpatient complications from cerebral aneurysm clipping: the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2005-2009.  J Neurosurg. 2014;120(3):591-598. doi:10.3171/2013.8.JNS13228PubMedGoogle Scholar
116.
Dammann  P, Schoemberg  T, Müller  O,  et al.  Outcome for unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysm treatment: surgical and endovascular approach in a single center.  Neurosurg Rev. 2014;37(4):643-651. doi:10.1007/s10143-014-0563-5PubMedGoogle Scholar
117.
Griessenauer  CJ, Poston  TL, Shoja  MM,  et al.  The impact of temporary artery occlusion during intracranial aneurysm surgery on long-term clinical outcome, part II: the patient who undergoes elective clipping.  World Neurosurg. 2014;82(3-4):402-408. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2013.02.067PubMedGoogle Scholar
118.
Shibahashi  K, Morita  A, Kimura  T.  Does a craniotomy for treatment of unruptured aneurysm affect cognitive function?  Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2014;54(10):786-793. doi:10.2176/nmc.oa.2013-0324PubMedGoogle Scholar
119.
Inamasu  J, Watabe  T, Ganaha  T,  et al.  Clinical characteristics and risk factors of chronic subdural haematoma associated with clipping of unruptured cerebral aneurysms.  J Clin Neurosci. 2013;20(8):1095-1098. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2012.09.024PubMedGoogle Scholar
120.
Ohno  T, Iihara  K, Takahashi  JC,  et al.  Incidence and risk factors of chronic subdural hematoma after aneurysmal clipping.  World Neurosurg. 2013;80(5):534-537. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2012.09.025PubMedGoogle Scholar
121.
Cha  KC, Hong  SC, Kim  JS.  Comparison between lateral supraorbital approach and pterional approach in the surgical treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2012;51(6):334-337. doi:10.3340/jkns.2012.51.6.334PubMedGoogle Scholar
122.
Shin  D, Park  J.  Unruptured supraclinoid internal carotid artery aneurysm surgery: superciliary keyhole approach versus pterional approach.  J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2012;52(4):306-311. doi:10.3340/jkns.2012.52.4.306PubMedGoogle Scholar
123.
Thines  L, Bourgeois  P, Lejeune  J-P.  Surgery for unruptured intracranial aneurysms in the ISAT and ISUIA era.  Can J Neurol Sci. 2012;39(2):174-179. doi:10.1017/S0317167100013184PubMedGoogle Scholar
124.
Wicks  RT, Pradilla  G, Raza  SM,  et al.  Impact of changes in intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials on stroke rates after clipping of intracranial aneurysms.  Neurosurgery. 2012;70(5):1114-1124. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31823f5cf7PubMedGoogle Scholar
125.
Park  J, Woo  H, Kang  D-H, Sung  J-K, Kim  Y.  Superciliary keyhole approach for small unruptured aneurysms in anterior cerebral circulation.  Neurosurgery. 2011;68(2)(Suppl Operative):300-309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
126.
Szelényi  A, Beck  J, Strametz  R,  et al.  Is the surgical repair of unruptured atherosclerotic aneurysms at a higher risk of intraoperative ischemia?  Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2011;113(2):129-135. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2010.10.012PubMedGoogle Scholar
127.
Yeon  JY, Kim  J-S, Hong  S-C.  Angiographic characteristics of unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms predicting perforator injuries.  Br J Neurosurg. 2011;25(4):497-502. doi:10.3109/02688697.2010.535924PubMedGoogle Scholar
128.
Bekelis  K, Gottlieb  D, Labropoulos  N,  et al.  The impact of hybrid neurosurgeons on the outcomes of endovascular coiling for unruptured cerebral aneurysms.  J Neurosurg. 2017;126(1):29-35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
129.
Clajus  C, Strasilla  C, Fiebig  T, Sychra  V, Fiorella  D, Klisch  J.  Initial and mid-term results from 108 consecutive patients with cerebral aneurysms treated with the WEB device.  J Neurointerv Surg. 2017;9(4):411-417.PubMedGoogle Scholar
130.
Kotowski  M, Naggara  O, Darsaut  TE, Raymond  J.  Systematic reviews of the literature on clipping and coiling of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.  Neurochirurgie. 2012;58(2-3):125-139. doi:10.1016/j.neuchi.2012.02.021PubMedGoogle Scholar
131.
Lanterna  LA, Tredici  G, Dimitrov  BD, Biroli  F.  Treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms by embolization with guglielmi detachable coils: case-fatality, morbidity, and effectiveness in preventing bleeding—a systematic review of the literature.  Neurosurgery. 2004;55(4):767-775. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000137653.93173.1CPubMedGoogle Scholar
132.
Naggara  ON, White  PM, Guilbert  F, Roy  D, Weill  A, Raymond  J.  Endovascular treatment of intracranial unruptured aneurysms: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on safety and efficacy.  Radiology. 2010;256(3):887-897. doi:10.1148/radiol.10091982PubMedGoogle Scholar
133.
Briganti  F, Leone  G, Marseglia  M,  et al.  Endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms using flow-diverter devices: a systematic review.  Neuroradiol J. 2015;28(4):365-375. doi:10.1177/1971400915602803PubMedGoogle Scholar
134.
Fang  S, Brinjikji  W, Murad  MH, Kallmes  DF, Cloft  HJ, Lanzino  G.  Endovascular treatment of anterior communicating artery aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(5):943-947. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3802PubMedGoogle Scholar
135.
Hwang  JS, Hyun  MK, Lee  HJ,  et al.  Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping in patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysm: a systematic review.  BMC Neurol. 2012;12:99. doi:10.1186/1471-2377-12-99PubMedGoogle Scholar
136.
Eappen  S, Lane  BH, Rosenberg  B,  et al.  Relationship between occurrence of surgical complications and hospital finances.  JAMA. 2013;309(15):1599-1606. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.2773PubMedGoogle Scholar
137.
Barker  FG  II, Amin-Hanjani  S, Butler  WE, Ogilvy  CS, Carter  BS.  In-hospital mortality and morbidity after surgical treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms in the United States, 1996-2000: the effect of hospital and surgeon volume.  Neurosurgery. 2003;52(5):995-1007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
138.
Asnafi  S, Rouchaud  A, Pierot  L, Brinjikji  W, Murad  MH, Kallmes  DF.  Efficacy and safety of the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(12):2287-2292. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4900PubMedGoogle Scholar
139.
Murthy  SB, Shah  S, Venkatasubba Rao  CP, Bershad  EM, Suarez  JI.  Treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms with the pipeline embolization device.  J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21(1):6-11. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2013.03.014PubMedGoogle Scholar
140.
Rouchaud  A, Brinjikji  W, Lanzino  G, Cloft  HJ, Kadirvel  R, Kallmes  DF.  Delayed hemorrhagic complications after flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms: a literature overview.  Neuroradiology. 2016;58(2):171-177. doi:10.1007/s00234-015-1615-4PubMedGoogle Scholar
×