Cargando…

A novel score for evaluating cerebral aneurysms treated with flow diversion: 4F-flow diversion predictive score

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although grading scales for angiography outcomes following cerebral aneurysm treatment with flow diversion have been published, physicians have not widely adopted these scales in practice. The aim of this study is to propose and validate a novel Flow diversion Predictive Scor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kang, Huibin, Luo, Bin, Liu, Jian, Wang, Anxin, Zhang, Hongqi, Li, Tianxiao, Song, Donglei, Zhao, Yuanli, Guan, Sheng, Wang, Yunyan, Feng, Wenfeng, Wang, Yang, Shi, Huaizhang, Liu, Jianmin, Yang, Xinjian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8381420/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34434256
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17562864211039336
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although grading scales for angiography outcomes following cerebral aneurysm treatment with flow diversion have been published, physicians have not widely adopted these scales in practice. The aim of this study is to propose and validate a novel Flow diversion Predictive Score (4F-FPS) grading scale based on previously established scales that is simple and reliable. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent endovascular treatment for cerebral aneurysms with flow diversion between January 2014 and September 2019. The included patients were randomly divided into the derivation and validation group in a 70/30 ratio, respectively. Aneurysms were classified as incomplete or complete occlusion based on final angiography outcomes. 4F-FPS was derived to predict aneurysm occlusion from multivariate logistic regression analyses in the derivation group and validated with previously published grading scales in the validation group. RESULTS: Overall, 662 patients [mean age, 53.8 years; 72.5% (480/662) female] with 662 aneurysms treated with the Pipeline(TM) flow diverter were included [69.9% (463/662) derivation group, 30.1% (199/662) validation group]. The incidence of aneurysm occlusion was 82.7%. 4F-FPS demonstrated significant discrimination in 10-fold cross validation [mean receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area, 0.862 ± 0.055] and calibration (Cox & Snell R(2), 0.251; Nagelkerke R(2), 0.413) in the derivation group. The ROC area of 4F-FPS score in both the derivation and validation groups is the largest compared with previously published grading scales/scores (p < 0.05), which shows better sensitivity and specificity. The 4F-FPS score showed excellent prediction, discrimination, and calibration properties. CONCLUSION: The 4F-FPS score is a simple and reliable tool to predict angiography outcome after flow diversion treatment. If widely adopted, it may provide a common language to be used in future reporting of flow diversion results for clinical trials and daily practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03831672