Search

Objective: Intraoperative rebleeding during endovascular treatment for ruptured intracranial aneurysms is associated with poor prognosis. Lumbar drainage is performed preoperatively to control intracranial pressure; however, it is associated with a risk of brain herniation or rebleeding because intracranial pressure may change rapidly. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of preoperative lumbar drainage., Methods: This retrospective study enrolled 375 patients who underwent endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms at our institution between April 2013 and March 2018. The incidence of rebleeding and clinical outcomes were compared between patients who did and did not undergo preoperative lumbar drainage., Results: Among the 375 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms, 324 (86.0%) and 51 (14.0%) patients did and did not undergo lumbar drainage, respectively. The incidence of rebleeding was 11/324 (3.4%) and 2/51 (3.9%) in lumbar drainage and nonlumbar drainage groups, respectively, with no statistical differences (p = 0.98). Of the rebleeding cases, 9/11 (81%) and 2/2 (100%) in lumbar drainage and nonlumbar drainage groups, respectively, were due to intraoperative bleeding, and 2/11 (19%) in the lumbar drainage group, the causes of the rebleeding were undetermined. The incidence of symptomatic vasospasm did not differ significantly between the groups (13.2% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.776), while the incidence of hydrocephalus (24.6% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.043) and meningitis (15.2% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.075) were slightly higher in the lumbar drainage group. Favorable clinical outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score <2) at discharge were less frequent in the lumbar drainage group (55.3% vs. 70.0%, P = 0.051). No significant differences were observed in the propensity score-matched analysis., Conclusion: Lumbar drainage before endovascular treatment for ruptured intracranial aneurysms is a safe procedure that does not increase the incidence of rebleeding., Competing Interests: The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this article., (©2024 The Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy.)

Objective: Carotid artery stenting embolic protection devices offer various options, among which distal filter protection is the simplest and easiest to handle. However, compared to balloon protection systems, distal filter protection has more embolic complications. Therefore, we explored the risk factors of distal filter protection, intending to achieve a safer carotid artery stenting. This retrospective study was conducted to identify prognostic factors following carotid artery stenting with only distal filter protection from July 2010 to June 2021., Methods: Information on patient background, procedures and devices, and complications was collected using medical records. The data pertaining to 187 patients were analyzed after excluding the data of patients in whom other protection devices (8 cases) were used. We used FilterWire EZ as the first choice for embolic protection device and SpiderFX when the patients had difficult-to-cross lesions., Results: The patients' mean age was 71.9 ± 6.9 years, and 72 (38.5%) were symptomatic. Symptomatic (odds ratio: 2.02, p = 0.035) and difficult-to-cross lesions (odds ratio: 3.63, p = 0.0013) were factors independently associated with symptomatic complications., Conclusion: This retrospective single-center study established independent prognostic factors for carotid artery stenting with distal filter protection. For patients with symptomatic lesions and severe stenosis or bends that are difficult to pass through, it is necessary to be careful when performing carotid artery stenting with distal filter protection., (©2024 The Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy.)