Remodeling Technique for Endovascular Treatment of Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms Had a Higher Rate of Adequate Postoperative Occlusion than Did Conventional Coil Embolization with Comparable Safety

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100894

In our large series of patients treated for ruptured aneurysms, the remodeling technique—despite being performed in aneurysms with unfavorable characteristics—was as safe as conventional coil embolization and more efficacious according to the rate of adequate postoperative occlusion.

Purpose

To compare the safety and efficacy of the remodeling technique with that of conventional coil embolization in a large multicenter series involving the endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms, the CLARITY study (Clinical and Anatomic Results in the Treatment of Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms).

Materials and Methods

The institutional review board approved the CLARITY study, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. A total of 768 patients (age range, 19–80 years; mean age ± standard deviation, 51.0 years ± 11.1) with 768 ruptured aneurysms were treated with either conventional coil embolization (608 patients, 79.2%) or the remodeling technique (160 patients, 20.8%). Patient and aneurysm characteristics, the rate of adverse events related to the treatment or initial intracranial hemorrhage, and patient outcome were compared between treatment groups by using the χ2, Fisher exact, or Student t test.

Results

The overall rate of treatment-related complications, with or without clinical manifestations, was 17.4% (106 of 608 patients) with coil embolization and 16.9% (27 of 160 patients) with remodeling (P = .999). The difference in the rates of thromboembolic events, intraoperative rupture, and early repeat bleeding between the treatment groups was not statistically significant. The cumulative morbidity and mortality rate related to the treatment in the remodeling group (3.8%, six of 160 patients) was similar to that in the coil embolization group (5.1%, 31 of 608 patients) (P = .678). Likewise, the global cumulative morbidity and mortality rates related to both the treatment and the initial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between groups (16.2% [26 of 160 patients] with remodeling and 19.6% [119 of 608 patients] with coil embolization, P = .366). The rate of adequate aneurysm occlusion, however, was significantly higher in the remodeling group (94.9%, 150 of 158 aneurysms) than in the coil embolization group (88.7%, 534 of 602 aneurysms) (P = .017).

Conclusion

In our large series of patients treated for ruptured aneurysms, the remodeling technique—despite being performed in aneurysms with unfavorable characteristics—was as safe as conventional coil embolization and more efficacious in terms of the rate of adequate postoperative occlusion. These results indicate that the remodeling technique can be routinely used in the treatment of ruptured aneurysms.

© RSNA, 2010

References

  • 1 Moret J, Pierot L, Boulin A, Castaings L. “Remodelling” technique of the arterial wall in the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms (abstr). Neuroradiology 1994;36(suppl 1):S83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Moret J, Cognard C, Weill A, Castaings L, Rey A. The “remodelling technique” in the treatment of wide neck intracranial aneurysms: angiographic results and clinical follow-up in 56 cases. Interv Neuroradiol 1997;3(1):21–35. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Aletich VA, Debrun GM, Misra M, Charbel F, Ausman JI. The remodeling technique of balloon-assisted Guglielmi detachable coil placement in wide-necked aneurysms: experience at the University of Illinois at Chicago. J Neurosurg 2000;93(3):388–396. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cottier JP, Pasco A, Gallas S, et al.. Utility of balloon-assisted Guglielmi detachable coiling in the treatment of 49 cerebral aneurysms: a retrospective, multicenter study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22(2):345–351. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Layton KF, Cloft HJ, Gray LA, Lewis DA, Kallmes DF. Balloon-assisted coiling of intracranial aneurysms: evaluation of local thrombus formation and symptomatic thromboembolic complications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28(6):1172–1175. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lefkowitz MA, Gobin YP, Akiba Y, et al.. Balloon-assisted Guglielmi detachable coiling of wide-necked aneurysms. II. Clinical results. Neurosurgery 1999;45(3):531–537, discussion 537–538. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Malek AM, Halbach VV, Phatouros CC, et al.. Balloon-assisted technique for endovascular coil embolization of geometrically difficult intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurgery 2000;46(6):1397–1406, discussion 1406–1407. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Nelson PK, Levy DI. Balloon-assisted coil embolization of wide-necked aneurysms of the internal carotid artery: medium-term angiographic and clinical follow-up in 22 patients. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22(1):19–26. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ross IB, Dhillon GS. Balloon assistance as a routine adjunct to the endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms. Surg Neurol 2006;66(6):593–601, discussion 601–602. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sluzewski M, van Rooij WJ, Beute GN, Nijssen PC. Balloon-assisted coil embolization of intracranial aneurysms: incidence, complications, and angiography results. J Neurosurg 2006;105(3):396–399. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pierot L, Spelle L, Leclerc X, Cognard C, Bonafé A, Moret J. Endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: comparison of safety of remodeling technique and standard treatment with coils. Radiology 2009;251(3):846–855. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pierot L, Spelle L, Vitry F; ATENA Investigators. Immediate anatomic results after the endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: analysis of the ATENA series. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31(1):140–144. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Raymond J, Guilbert F, Weill A, et al.. Long-term angiographic recurrences after selective endovascular treatment of aneurysms with detachable coils. Stroke 2003;34(6):1398–1403. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Pierot L, Cognard C, Anxionnat R, Ricolfi F; CLARITY Investigators. Ruptured intracranial aneurysms: factors affecting the rate and outcome of endovascular treatment complications in a series of 782 patients (CLARITY study). Radiology 2010;256(3):916–923. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Pierot L, Spelle L, Vitry F; ATENA Investigators. Immediate clinical outcome of patients harboring unruptured intracranial aneurysms treated by endovascular approach: results of the ATENA study. Stroke 2008;39(9):2497–2504. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Elijovich L, Higashida RT, Lawton MT, et al.. Predictors and outcomes of intraprocedural rupture in patients treated for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: the CARAT study. Stroke 2008;39(5):1501–1506. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received June 24, 2010; revision requested August 12; revision received August 25; accepted August 27; final version accepted September 1.
Published online: Feb 2011
Published in print: Feb 2011