Search

Despite the popularity of flow-diverting stents for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms, there is no widely accepted scale for the characterization of results. We present an outcomes-based grading scale that considers factors related to failure of flow diversion.The grading scale was developed using the results from consecutive patients at two institutions who were treated with flow diversion for a cerebral aneurysm. The initial treatment results were graded on patient, aneurysm, and treatment characteristics. A 6-point grading scale was developed based on these data.One hundred and seventy-one patients were included in the patient cohort. When compared by multivariate analysis with patients without residuals, patients with aneurysm residuals were found to be older (age ≥60 years, p=0.01, OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.33), to have larger aneurysms (size ≥15 mm, p0.01, OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.62), to have aneurysms with associated side branches (p=0.02, OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.33), and to have a post-treatment Raymond score of 2 or 3 (p=0.01, OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.56). Using the Raymond score (1-3) as the foundation for the grading scale, additional points (0 or 1) were given for the other three identified factors, creating a 6-point scale. We found that patients with residual aneurysms had statistically higher final tabulated scores (p0.01).We propose a novel straightforward outcomes-based scale to characterize results after flow diversion treatment of cerebral aneurysms. This scale may provide the basis for the common reporting of results in future studies.

BackgroundWith increasing use of flow-diverting stents for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms, standardized methods and a common language to evaluate angiographic outcomes are needed. Multiple grading scales have been developed for this purpose but none has been widely adopted.ObjectiveTo analyze these scales to determine interobserver reliability.MethodsFour independent assessors scored the intraprocedural angiograms of patients who underwent flow-diverting stent deployment for an intracranial saccular or fusiform aneurysm at our institution between October 2012 and June 2015. Angiographic outcome immediately after flow-diverting stent deployment was scored using three grading scales (Kamran–Byrne (KB), Simple Measurement of Aneurysm Residual after Treatment (SMART), and O'Kelley, Krings, Marotta (OKM)). Statistical analysis was performed using Light's κ for multiple raters (κ), Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W), and intraclass correlation (ICC).ResultsWe included the angiograms of 50 consecutive patients (mean age 58 years, range 30–79) who underwent flow-diverting stent deployment for an intracranial aneurysm (40 saccular, 10 fusiform). Six aneurysms were located in the posterior circulation. The inter-rater reliability was typically poor or fair: SMART aneurysm filling (κ=0.30, W=0.36, ICC=0.12), SMART parent vessel stenosis (κ=0.07, W=0.33, ICC=0.12), KB axis I (κ=0.24, W=0.50, ICC=0.25), KB axis II (κ=0.07, W=0.30, ICC=0.06), OKM aneurysm filling (κ=0.23, W=0.45, ICC=0.13), OKM contrast stasis (κ=0.36,W=0.71, ICC=0.54).ConclusionsExisting flow-diverting stent grading scales have low inter-rater reliability for most categories.

ObjectiveChronic low back pain is very common and often treated with epidural steroid injections (ESIs). As ESI referrals had been rapidly increasing at our Veterans’ Administration hospital, we were concerned that they were supplanting more comprehensive care. The objective was to determine how referral patterns and multidisciplinary care might change with the implementation of evidence-based guidelines.MethodsIn this retrospective observational study, multidisciplinary evidence-based guidelines were implemented in 2014 (EAGER: Esi Appropriateness GuidElines pRotocol) as part of the ordering process for an ESI. Time series analysis was performed to assess the primary outcome of subspecialty referral pattern, that is, the number of patients receiving referrals to ancillary services which might serve to provide a more comprehensive approach to their back pain. Secondary outcomes included patient-level changes (ie, body mass index, number of injections, opioid use), which were compared before and after protocol implementation.ResultsComparing preimplementation and postimplementation protocol periods, referrals to physical medicine/rehabilitation increased 11.7% (p=0.003) per year and integrative health increased 2.1% (pConclusionImplementation of evidence-based guidelines for ESI referral helps guide patients into a more comprehensive care pathway for chronic low back pain and is correlated with patient-level changes such as decreased body mass index and decreased opioid usage.