Cargando…

Segment Occlusion vs. Reconstruction—A Single Center Experience With Endovascular Strategies for Ruptured Vertebrobasilar Dissecting Aneurysms

Objective: Ruptured dissecting aneurysms of the intracranial vertebral arteries exhibit an extraordinarily high risk for morbidity and mortality and are prone to re-rupture. Therefore, early treatment is mandatory to induce stagnation of the critical dynamic mural process. Appropriate endovascular a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schob, Stefan, Becher, Anett, Bhogal, Pervinder, Richter, Cindy, Hartmann, Anna, Köhlert, Katharina, Arlt, Felix, Ziganshyna, Svitlana, Hoffmann, Karl-Titus, Nestler, Ulf, Meixensberger, Jürgen, Quäschling, Ulf
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6424888/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30918497
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00207
_version_ 1783404736539525120
author Schob, Stefan
Becher, Anett
Bhogal, Pervinder
Richter, Cindy
Hartmann, Anna
Köhlert, Katharina
Arlt, Felix
Ziganshyna, Svitlana
Hoffmann, Karl-Titus
Nestler, Ulf
Meixensberger, Jürgen
Quäschling, Ulf
author_facet Schob, Stefan
Becher, Anett
Bhogal, Pervinder
Richter, Cindy
Hartmann, Anna
Köhlert, Katharina
Arlt, Felix
Ziganshyna, Svitlana
Hoffmann, Karl-Titus
Nestler, Ulf
Meixensberger, Jürgen
Quäschling, Ulf
author_sort Schob, Stefan
collection PubMed
description Objective: Ruptured dissecting aneurysms of the intracranial vertebral arteries exhibit an extraordinarily high risk for morbidity and mortality and are prone to re-rupture. Therefore, early treatment is mandatory to induce stagnation of the critical dynamic mural process. Appropriate endovascular approaches are segment sacrifice and reconstruction, however, both carry specific risks and benefits. To date most studies discuss only one of these approaches and focus on one specific device or technique. Therefore, our study aimed to present our experiences with both techniques, providing a considered approach on when to perform endovascular reconstruction or sacrifice. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage in our database, suffering from dissecting aneurysms of the intradural vertebral arteries and treated endovascularly in the acute setting. A total of 16 cases were included. Clinical history, radiologic findings and outcomes were analyzed. Results: In 7 patients a reconstructive approach was chosen with 4 of them receiving stent-assisted coiling as primary strategy. One of the 7 patients suffered early re-bleeding due to progression of the dissection and therefore treatment was augmented with implantation of 2 flow diverters. The remaining 2 patients were primarily treated with flow diverters in telescoping technique. In 9 patients a deconstructive approach was followed: 6 patients were treated with proximal coil-occlusion of the V4 segment, 3 patients received distal coiling of the V4 segment. Two patients died (GOS 1) in the subacute stage due to sequelae of recurrent episodes of raised intracranial pressure and parenchymal hemorrhage. Two patients kept severe disability (GOS 3), six patients had moderate disability (GOS 4) and seven patients showed full recovery (GOS 5). None of the patients suffered from a procedural or postprocedural ischemic stroke. Conclusions: In patients with good collateral vascularization, proximal, or distal partial segment sacrifice via with endovascular coil occlusion seems to yield the best risk-benefit ratio for treatment of ruptured dissecting V4 aneurysms, especially since no continued anticoagulation is required and possibly essential surgery remains feasible in this scenario. If possible, PICA occlusion should be avoided—although even proximal PICA occlusion can become necessary, when weighing against the risk of an otherwise untreated ruptured V4 dissecting aneurysm. Contrarily, if the dominant V4 segment is affected, the hemodynamic asymmetry prohibits occlusion and necessitates reconstruction of the respective segment. For this, implants with high metal coverage treating the entire affected segment appear to be the most promising approach.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6424888
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64248882019-03-27 Segment Occlusion vs. Reconstruction—A Single Center Experience With Endovascular Strategies for Ruptured Vertebrobasilar Dissecting Aneurysms Schob, Stefan Becher, Anett Bhogal, Pervinder Richter, Cindy Hartmann, Anna Köhlert, Katharina Arlt, Felix Ziganshyna, Svitlana Hoffmann, Karl-Titus Nestler, Ulf Meixensberger, Jürgen Quäschling, Ulf Front Neurol Neurology Objective: Ruptured dissecting aneurysms of the intracranial vertebral arteries exhibit an extraordinarily high risk for morbidity and mortality and are prone to re-rupture. Therefore, early treatment is mandatory to induce stagnation of the critical dynamic mural process. Appropriate endovascular approaches are segment sacrifice and reconstruction, however, both carry specific risks and benefits. To date most studies discuss only one of these approaches and focus on one specific device or technique. Therefore, our study aimed to present our experiences with both techniques, providing a considered approach on when to perform endovascular reconstruction or sacrifice. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage in our database, suffering from dissecting aneurysms of the intradural vertebral arteries and treated endovascularly in the acute setting. A total of 16 cases were included. Clinical history, radiologic findings and outcomes were analyzed. Results: In 7 patients a reconstructive approach was chosen with 4 of them receiving stent-assisted coiling as primary strategy. One of the 7 patients suffered early re-bleeding due to progression of the dissection and therefore treatment was augmented with implantation of 2 flow diverters. The remaining 2 patients were primarily treated with flow diverters in telescoping technique. In 9 patients a deconstructive approach was followed: 6 patients were treated with proximal coil-occlusion of the V4 segment, 3 patients received distal coiling of the V4 segment. Two patients died (GOS 1) in the subacute stage due to sequelae of recurrent episodes of raised intracranial pressure and parenchymal hemorrhage. Two patients kept severe disability (GOS 3), six patients had moderate disability (GOS 4) and seven patients showed full recovery (GOS 5). None of the patients suffered from a procedural or postprocedural ischemic stroke. Conclusions: In patients with good collateral vascularization, proximal, or distal partial segment sacrifice via with endovascular coil occlusion seems to yield the best risk-benefit ratio for treatment of ruptured dissecting V4 aneurysms, especially since no continued anticoagulation is required and possibly essential surgery remains feasible in this scenario. If possible, PICA occlusion should be avoided—although even proximal PICA occlusion can become necessary, when weighing against the risk of an otherwise untreated ruptured V4 dissecting aneurysm. Contrarily, if the dominant V4 segment is affected, the hemodynamic asymmetry prohibits occlusion and necessitates reconstruction of the respective segment. For this, implants with high metal coverage treating the entire affected segment appear to be the most promising approach. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-03-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6424888/ /pubmed/30918497 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00207 Text en Copyright © 2019 Schob, Becher, Bhogal, Richter, Hartmann, Köhlert, Arlt, Ziganshyna, Hoffmann, Nestler, Meixensberger and Quäschling. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neurology
Schob, Stefan
Becher, Anett
Bhogal, Pervinder
Richter, Cindy
Hartmann, Anna
Köhlert, Katharina
Arlt, Felix
Ziganshyna, Svitlana
Hoffmann, Karl-Titus
Nestler, Ulf
Meixensberger, Jürgen
Quäschling, Ulf
Segment Occlusion vs. Reconstruction—A Single Center Experience With Endovascular Strategies for Ruptured Vertebrobasilar Dissecting Aneurysms
title Segment Occlusion vs. Reconstruction—A Single Center Experience With Endovascular Strategies for Ruptured Vertebrobasilar Dissecting Aneurysms
title_full Segment Occlusion vs. Reconstruction—A Single Center Experience With Endovascular Strategies for Ruptured Vertebrobasilar Dissecting Aneurysms
title_fullStr Segment Occlusion vs. Reconstruction—A Single Center Experience With Endovascular Strategies for Ruptured Vertebrobasilar Dissecting Aneurysms
title_full_unstemmed Segment Occlusion vs. Reconstruction—A Single Center Experience With Endovascular Strategies for Ruptured Vertebrobasilar Dissecting Aneurysms
title_short Segment Occlusion vs. Reconstruction—A Single Center Experience With Endovascular Strategies for Ruptured Vertebrobasilar Dissecting Aneurysms
title_sort segment occlusion vs. reconstruction—a single center experience with endovascular strategies for ruptured vertebrobasilar dissecting aneurysms
topic Neurology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6424888/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30918497
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00207
work_keys_str_mv AT schobstefan segmentocclusionvsreconstructionasinglecenterexperiencewithendovascularstrategiesforrupturedvertebrobasilardissectinganeurysms
AT becheranett segmentocclusionvsreconstructionasinglecenterexperiencewithendovascularstrategiesforrupturedvertebrobasilardissectinganeurysms
AT bhogalpervinder segmentocclusionvsreconstructionasinglecenterexperiencewithendovascularstrategiesforrupturedvertebrobasilardissectinganeurysms
AT richtercindy segmentocclusionvsreconstructionasinglecenterexperiencewithendovascularstrategiesforrupturedvertebrobasilardissectinganeurysms
AT hartmannanna segmentocclusionvsreconstructionasinglecenterexperiencewithendovascularstrategiesforrupturedvertebrobasilardissectinganeurysms
AT kohlertkatharina segmentocclusionvsreconstructionasinglecenterexperiencewithendovascularstrategiesforrupturedvertebrobasilardissectinganeurysms
AT arltfelix segmentocclusionvsreconstructionasinglecenterexperiencewithendovascularstrategiesforrupturedvertebrobasilardissectinganeurysms
AT ziganshynasvitlana segmentocclusionvsreconstructionasinglecenterexperiencewithendovascularstrategiesforrupturedvertebrobasilardissectinganeurysms
AT hoffmannkarltitus segmentocclusionvsreconstructionasinglecenterexperiencewithendovascularstrategiesforrupturedvertebrobasilardissectinganeurysms
AT nestlerulf segmentocclusionvsreconstructionasinglecenterexperiencewithendovascularstrategiesforrupturedvertebrobasilardissectinganeurysms
AT meixensbergerjurgen segmentocclusionvsreconstructionasinglecenterexperiencewithendovascularstrategiesforrupturedvertebrobasilardissectinganeurysms
AT quaschlingulf segmentocclusionvsreconstructionasinglecenterexperiencewithendovascularstrategiesforrupturedvertebrobasilardissectinganeurysms