Evidence Hub

Coil Type Does Not Affect Angiographic Follow-Up Outcomes of Cerebral Aneurysm Coiling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

I. Rezek, G. Mousan, Zhen Wang, M. Murad, D. Kallmes

American Journal of Neuroradiology, 2013

33 citations

Abstract

This meta-analysis of the literature sought to identify differences between outcomes of patients treated with first- and second-generation aneurysm coils. Unfavorable outcome was defined as recanalization, less than 90% occlusion, and/or incomplete occlusion at follow-up. In 82 published articles, unfavorable outcomes were reported in 20% of patients treated with bare platinum coils, 23% with Matrix coils, 15% with HydroCoil, and 15% with Cerecyte coils. These differences were not statistically significant. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous studies varied in their conclusions about the superiority of second-generation coils compared with bare platinum. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed differences in reported unfavorable angiographic outcomes of cerebral aneurysms treated with coil embolization as a function of coil type. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review covered 1999–2011 through the use of Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE. Search terms were “subarachnoid hemorrhage,” “intracranial aneurysms,” “endovascular treatment,” and “coiling.” Inclusion criteria were studies reporting >50 aneurysms with imaging follow-up. We defined “unfavorable angiographic outcome” as either “recanalization,” <90% occlusion, or “incomplete occlusion” at follow-up. Rates of unfavorable outcomes were pooled through the use of random effects models and compared across various coil types. Multivariate random effects meta-regression models were used to further explore the…

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.

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