Endovascular Treatment of Giant Intracranial Aneurysms.

Objective Giant intracranial aneurysms (GIAs) are associated with a high risk of rupture and have a high mortality rate when they rupture (65-100%). The traditional microsurgical approach to secure these lesions is challenging, and as such endovascular embolization has been increasingly selected as a treatment option. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with ruptured and unruptured GIAs at three medical centers from October 2008 to April 2016. Clinical follow-up and digital subtraction angiography were conducted at six months post-treatment. Chi-square analysis was used to determine differences in outcomes between anterior and posterior circulation aneurysms and if a pipeline embolization device (PED) provided favorable outcomes in unruptured GIAs. Results A total of 45 consecutive patients (mean/median age = 57/59; range: 16-82 years) were included. The mean/median aneurysm size was 29.9/28.3 mm (range: 25-50 mm). Eight (18%) patients presented with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and 37 (82%) with unruptured GIAs. Twenty-eight (62%) were treated with a PED: 11 (24.4%) with one PED, 1 (2.2%) with PED + coils, 11 (24.4%) with more than one PED, and 5 (13.5%) with multiple PED + coils. The overall mortality rate was 3/45 (6.7%). No deaths were procedure-related. Five (11.1%) patients experienced ischemic stroke but only 2 had a 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of ≥3. Of 33 patients available for six-month angiography, Raymond scale (RS) scores were 1, 2, and 3 for 23/45 (70%), 7/45 (20.9%), and 3/45 (9.1%), respectively. Chi-square test demonstrated that overall, anterior circulation GIAs had better clinical (mRS score) and radiographic (RS score) outcomes than posterior GIAs. PED alone provided similar clinical mRS outcomes but had a higher rate of complete occlusion at six months compared with PED + coils and coils alone in unruptured GIAs (p < 0.05). Conclusions Endovascular embolization using PED or PED + coils appears to be a moderately safe and effective treatment option for patients with GIAs.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section.
(Copyright © 2020, Linfante et al.)