4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Does Increasing Packing Density Using Larger Caliber Coils Improve Angiographic Results of Embolization of Intracranial Aneurysms at 1 Year: A Randomized Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Does Embolization with Larger Coils Lead to Better Treatment of Aneurysms (DELTA) was an investigator-initiated multicenter prospective, parallel, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Patients had 4- to 12-mm unruptured aneurysms. Treatment allocation to either 15- (experimental group) or 10-caliber coils (control group) was randomized 1:1 using a Web-based platform. The primary efficacy outcome was a major recurrence or a residual aneurysm at follow-up angiography at 12 ± 2 months adjudicated by an independent core lab blinded to the treatment allocation. The trial was stopped after 210 patients were recruited between November 2013 and June 2017 when funding was interrupted. On an intent-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome was reached in 37 patients allocated to 15-caliber coils and 36 patients allocated to 10-caliber coils. Safety and other clinical outcomes were similar. Coiling of aneurysms randomized to 15-caliber coils achieved higher packing densities compared with 10-caliber coils, but this had no impact on the angiographic outcomes at 1 year, which were primarily driven by aneurysm size and initial angiographic results.

          Abstract

          BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

          The impact of increased aneurysm packing density on angiographic outcomes has not been studied in a randomized trial. We sought to determine the potential for larger caliber coils to achieve higher packing densities and to improve the angiographic results of embolization of intracranial aneurysms at 1 year.

          MATERIALS AND METHODS:

          Does Embolization with Larger Coils Lead to Better Treatment of Aneurysms (DELTA) was an investigator-initiated multicenter prospective, parallel, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Patients had 4- to 12-mm unruptured aneurysms. Treatment allocation to either 15- (experimental) or 10-caliber coils (control group) was randomized 1:1 using a Web-based platform. The primary efficacy outcome was a major recurrence or a residual aneurysm at follow-up angiography at 12 ± 2 months adjudicated by an independent core lab blinded to the treatment allocation. Secondary outcomes included indices of treatment success and standard safety outcomes. Recruitment of 564 patients was judged necessary to show a decrease in poor outcomes from 33% to 20% with 15-caliber coils.

          RESULTS:

          Funding was interrupted and the trial was stopped after 210 patients were recruited between November 2013 and June 2017. On an intent-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome was reached in 37 patients allocated to 15-caliber coils and 36 patients allocated to 10-caliber coils (OR = 0.931; 95% CI, 0.528–1.644; P = .885). Safety and other clinical outcomes were similar. The 15-caliber coil group had a higher mean packing density (37.0% versus 26.9%, P = .0001). Packing density had no effect on the primary outcome when adjusted for initial angiographic results (OR = 1.001; 95% CI, 0.981–1.022; P = .879).

          CONCLUSIONS:

          Coiling of aneurysms randomized to 15-caliber coils achieved higher packing densities compared with 10-caliber coils, but this had no impact on the angiographic outcomes at 1 year, which were primarily driven by aneurysm size and initial angiographic results.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial.

          Endovascular detachable coil treatment is being increasingly used as an alternative to craniotomy and clipping for some ruptured intracranial aneurysms, although the relative benefits of these two approaches have yet to be established. We undertook a randomised, multicentre trial to compare the safety and efficacy of endovascular coiling with standard neurosurgical clipping for such aneurysms judged to be suitable for both treatments. We enrolled 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms and randomly assigned them to neurosurgical clipping (n=1070) or endovascular treatment by detachable platinum coils (n=1073). Clinical outcomes were assessed at 2 months and at 1 year with interim ascertainment of rebleeds and death. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a modified Rankin scale score of 3-6 (dependency or death) at 1 year. Trial recruitment was stopped by the steering committee after a planned interim analysis. Analysis was per protocol. 190 of 801 (23.7%) patients allocated endovascular treatment were dependent or dead at 1 year compared with 243 of 793 (30.6%) allocated neurosurgical treatment (p=0.0019). The relative and absolute risk reductions in dependency or death after allocation to an endovascular versus neurosurgical treatment were 22.6% (95% CI 8.9-34.2) and 6.9% (2.5-11.3), respectively. The risk of rebleeding from the ruptured aneurysm after 1 year was two per 1276 and zero per 1081 patient-years for patients allocated endovascular and neurosurgical treatment, respectively. In patients with a ruptured intracranial aneurysm, for which endovascular coiling and neurosurgical clipping are therapeutic options, the outcome in terms of survival free of disability at 1 year is significantly better with endovascular coiling. The data available to date suggest that the long-term risks of further bleeding from the treated aneurysm are low with either therapy, although somewhat more frequent with endovascular coiling.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Long-term angiographic recurrences after selective endovascular treatment of aneurysms with detachable coils.

            Our aim in this study was to assess the incidence and determining factors of angiographic recurrences after endovascular treatment of aneurysms. A retrospective analysis of all patients with selective endosaccular coil occlusion of intracranial aneurysms prospectively collected from 1992 to 2002 was performed. There were 501 aneurysms in 466 patients (mean+/-SD age, 54.20+/-12.54 years; 74% female). Aneurysms were acutely ruptured (54.1%) or unruptured (45.9%). Mean+/-SD aneurysm size was 9.67+/-5.91 mm with a 4.31+/-1.97-mm neck. The most frequent sites were basilar bifurcation (27.7%) and carotid ophthalmic (18.0%) aneurysms. Recurrences were subjectively divided into minor and major (ideally necessitating re-treatment). The most significant predictors of angiographic recurrence were determined by logistic regression. These results were confirmed by chi2, t tests, or ANOVAs followed, when appropriate, by Tukey's contrasts. Short-term ( 1 year) follow-up angiograms, in 277 (55%), for a total of 383 (76.5%) followed up. Recurrences were found in 33.6% of treated aneurysms that were followed up and that appeared at a mean+/-SD time of 12.31+/-11.33 months after treatment. Major recurrences presented in 20.7% and appeared at a mean of 16.49+/-15.93 months. Three patients (0.8%) bled during a mean clinical follow-up period of 31.32+/-24.96 months. Variables determined to be significant predictors (P or =10 mm, treatment during the acute phase of rupture, incomplete initial occlusions, and duration of follow-up. Long-term monitoring of patients treated by endosaccular coiling is mandatory.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Hydrogel-coated coils versus bare platinum coils for the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms (HELPS): a randomised controlled trial.

              Coated coils for endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysm were developed to reduce recurrence and retreatment rates, and have been in clinical use for 8-9 years without robust evidence to determine their efficacy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of hydrogel-coated coils. This randomised trial was undertaken in 24 centres in seven countries. Patients aged 18-75 years with a previously untreated ruptured or unruptured cerebral aneurysm of 2-25 mm in maximum diameter were randomly allocated (1:1) to aneurysm coiling with either hydrogel-coated coils or standard bare platinum coils (control). Randomisation was done with a computer-generated sequence, stratified by aneurysm size, shape, and dome-to-neck ratio; intention to use assist device; and by region. Participants and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. Analysis was by modified intention to treat (excluding missing data). Primary outcome was a composite of angiographic and clinical outcomes at 18-month follow-up. We also did prespecified subgroup analyses of characteristics likely to be relevant to angiographic outcome. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN30531382. 249 patients were allocated to the hydrogel coil group and 250 to the control group. In 44 of 467 patients for whom an 18-month composite primary outcome was unavailable, 6-month angiographic results were used. 70 (28%) patients in the hydrogel group and 90 (36%) control patients had an adverse composite primary outcome, giving an absolute reduction in the proportion of adverse composite primary outcomes with hydrogel of 7·0% (95% CI -1·6 to 15·5), odds ratio (OR) 0·73 (0·49-1·1, p=0·13). In a prespecified subgroup analysis in recently ruptured aneurysms, there were more adverse composite primary outcomes in the control group than in the hydrogel group-OR 2·08 (1·24-3·46, p=0·014). There were 8·6% fewer major angiographic recurrences in patients allocated to hydrogel coils-OR 0·7 (0·4-1·0, p=0·049). There were five cases of unexplained hydrocephalus in not-recently-ruptured aneurysms in the hydrogel coil group and one case in the control group. Whether use of hydrogel coils reduces late aneurysm rupture or improves long-term clinical outcome is not clear, but our results indicate that their use lowers major recurrence. MicroVention Inc. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
                AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
                ajnr
                ajnr
                AJNR
                AJNR: American Journal of Neuroradiology
                American Society of Neuroradiology
                0195-6108
                1936-959X
                January 2020
                : 41
                : 1
                : 29-34
                Affiliations
                [1] aFrom the Department of Radiology (J.R., J.G., D.R., A.W.), Service of Interventional Neuroradiology, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [2] bDepartment of Surgery/Medicine (B.A.v.A), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                [3] cDivision of Neuroradiology (J.J.S.S.), Department of Radiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
                [4] dDepartment of Radiology (J.J.S.S.), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
                [5] eDepartment of Radiology, Service of Interventional Neuroradiology (D.I.), University of Ottawa Hospitals, Civic Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [6] fDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences (A.P.M.), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [7] gDepartment of Radiology (P.K.), University of Tennessee Medical Center, Knoxville, Tennessee
                [8] hDepartment of Neurosurgery (R.D.T., A.T.), Prisma Health–Upstate, Greenville, South Carolina
                [9] iDivision of Neuroradiology (V.M.-P.), Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [10] jDepartment of Neuroradiology (J.S.C., S.B.), West Virginia University, Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute, Morgantown, West Virginia
                [11] kDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology (A.E.), University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, Virginia
                [12] lDepartments of Neurosurgery and Radiology, Northwell Health System (H.H.W., D.F.), Manhasset, New York
                [13] mDepartment of Neurosurgery (A.A.), University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System, Chicago, Illinois
                [14] nDepartment of Neurosurgery (P.L.), Hôpital Enfant-Jésus, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
                [15] oDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics (M.C.), University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [16] pDepartments of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Radiology (T.N.N.), Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
                [17] qDepartment of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging (J.L.R.)
                [18] rDivision of Neurosurgery (T.E.D.), Department of Surgery, Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
                Author notes
                Please address correspondence to Jean Raymond, MD, Department of Radiology, Service of Interventional Neuroradiology, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, 1000 Saint-Denis St, Room D03-5462B, Montreal, QC H2X 0C1 Quebec, Canada; e-mail:  jean.raymond@ 123456Umontreal.ca
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1978-4274
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3960-3039
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2675-6116
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3707-9723
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2041-9178
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7157-5969
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0819-7050
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4533-3648
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8375-0410
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6804-3985
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6966-7987
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4912-6467
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9236-6573
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2116-5504
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2677-8780
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1491-4634
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6066-4453
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0281-6201
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5619-5914
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2291-9566
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2810-1685
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2324-8415
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4662-1550
                Article
                19-01074
                10.3174/ajnr.A6362
                6975335
                31896568
                3c66d035-090d-4d7c-a073-7607f1c7f993
                © 2020 by American Journal of Neuroradiology

                Indicates open access to non-subscribers at www.ajnr.org

                History
                : 16 October 2019
                : 6 November 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: DePuy Synthes, part of Johnson & Johnson Medical Products, a division of Johnson & Johnson Inc. and Cerenovus, Part of Depuy Synthes Products, Inc.
                Award ID: Study ID # CSS-CNV-14-006
                Categories
                Interventional
                Editor's Choice

                Comments

                Comment on this article