Evidence Hub

Diffusion-Weighted Imaging–Detected Ischemic Lesions following Endovascular Treatment of Cerebral Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

K. Bond, W. Brinjikji, M. Murad, D. Kallmes, H. Cloft, G. Lanzino

American Journal of Neuroradiology, 2017

2,148 participants · 58 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms is associated with the risk of thromboembolic ischemic complications. Many of these events are asymptomatic and identified only on diffusion-weighted imaging. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the incidence of DWI positive for thromboembolic events following endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search identified studies published between 2000 and April 2016 that reported postprocedural DWI findings in patients undergoing endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. The primary outcome was the incidence of DWI positive for thromboembolic events. We examined outcomes by treatment type, sex, and aneurysm characteristics. Meta-analyses were performed by using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies with 2148 patients and 2268 aneurysms were included. The overall incidence of DWI positive for thromboembolic events following endovascular treatment was 49% (95% CI, 42%–56%). Treatment with flow diversion trended toward a higher rate of DWI positive for lesions than coiling alone (67%; 95% CI, 46%–85%; versus 45%; 95% CI, 33%–56%; P = .07). There was no difference between patients treated with coiling alone and those treated with balloon-assisted (44%; 95% CI, 29%–60%; P = .99) or stent-assisted (43%; 95% CI, 24%–63%; P = .89) coiling. Sex, aneurysm rupture status, location, and size were not associated…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,148 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free