This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective: To compare complications of surgical clipping and coil embolization in the treatment of unruptured aneurysms.
Background: Surgical clipping has been the preferred treatment for unruptured cerebral aneurysms but endovascular coil embolization is an increasingly employed alternative. No direct comparisons of the techniques are available to guide clinical decision making.
Methods: We performed a cohort study of patients treated for unruptured cerebral aneurysms at 60 university hospitals from January 1994 through June 1997 using the University HealthSystem Consortium database. The database was validated by chart review from one of the participant universities. The main outcome measures were in-hospital mortality and adverse outcomes, defined as in-hospital deaths and discharges to nursing homes or rehabilitation hospitals.
Results: The primary treatment modality was surgical in 2,357 cases and endovascular in 255 cases. Adverse outcomes were significantly more common in surgical cases (18.5%) compared to endovascular cases (10.6%) (p = 0.002), and the difference was not altered after adjusting for age, sex, race, transfer admissions, emergency room admissions, and year of treatment (odds ratio [OR] 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4 to 3.3; p = 0.001). In-hospital mortality was also increased in surgical cases (2.3% versus 0.4%; p = 0.039), but the difference was not significant in the multivariable model (OR 6.3, 95% CI 0.9 to 46.1; p = 0.07). Length of stay and hospital charges were significantly greater for surgical cases (p < 0.0001 for each), and these differences were not affected by risk adjustment.
Conclusion: Endovascular coil embolization resulted in fewer adverse outcomes than surgery for unruptured cerebral aneurysms treated at the university hospitals studied. Although these results should be seen as preliminary, the magnitude of difference and current predominance of surgery appear to justify a randomized trial.
- Received January 18, 1999.
- Accepted in final form March 20, 1999.
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.