Evidence Hub

Comparative outcomes of coil embolization and surgical clipping in elderly patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Y. Rossi, Gabriel Bolner, Jonathan Costa Dall’Acqua, Fabiana Dolovitsch de Oliveira, Lucas Vincenzi Zacaria, T. Denicol, M. Frudit, N. V. de Oliveira Souza

Neurosurgical review, 2025

51,415 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Elderly patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) face a disproportionately high burden of morbidity and mortality. While endovascular coiling is often favored in this population, direct comparisons with surgical clipping are limited. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare outcomes of clipping versus coiling in SAH patients aged ≥ 60 years. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases identified studies comparing the two treatments in this age group. The primary outcome was a composite of unfavorable outcomes (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] > 2 and mortality). Secondary outcomes included mortality, favorable outcome (mRS 0–2), rebleeding, and hospital length of stay. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics, with subgroup analysis by age decade. Twenty-seven studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) involving 51,415 patients (59.6% treated with clipping) were included. There were no significant differences between clipping and coiling for unfavorable outcome (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.96–1.11), favorable outcome (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.93–1.11), mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.97–1.19), or rebleeding (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.57–2.57). However, coiling was associated with shorter hospital stays (MD -2.53 days; 95% CI -4.58 to -0.49; p = 0.0152). RCTs showed a non-significant trend favoring coiling, while observational studies leaned toward clipping. Heterogeneity for main outcomes was moderate (I² = 57.7%). Using the GRADE framework, overall certainty of evidence was…

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: 51,415 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