Investigators, ISUIA

INTRODUCTION: Cognitive changes can occur following procedural interventions and subarachnoid hemorrhage in unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA). The International Study of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms conducted cognitive assessment using the Mini-Mental State Exam at baseline and the Telephone Interview Cognitive Status Exam (TICS) at follow-up. Hypothesis: The purpose of this analysis was to compare the 1 year and 5 year outcome in the treatment cohorts (surgery and endovascular) with those of the untreated subgroup. Methods: Patients were subdivided into the initial treatment and untreated cohorts based upon observation or treatment practices in 61 centers from 1991-1998. 1691 patients were in the observational cohort and 2388 in the treated cohort. The cohorts were followed annually with measures of neurological status, Rankin Scale and cognition (TICS). Outcomes were determined prospectively. Comparison of outcomes was done using continuous data and by categories. Covariate adjustment was done using general linear models. Stratified analysis was done by Rankin Score at the time of follow-up. Results: The mean TICS score at 1 year in the cohort was 33.4 with a median of 34 (maximum is 40). In the treated patients the mean was 33.5 and in the untreated patients it was 33.3 (P=0.644). However, Rankin Score at 1 year was significant with a higher percentage of 3-5 scores in the treated group (P=0.003) Categorical analysis of the TICS Score when stratified by Rankin Score at 1 year showed small but significant differences, P=0.03 for Rankin 0-2, and P=0.07 for Rankin 3-5. However after adjustment for baseline variables treatment TICS Score was no longer significant.. The 5 year results showed that the untreated patients did worse than the treated group in TICS. However after adjustment no differences were apparent. Conclusions: Cognitive changes associated with treatment may be minor source of disability post-treatment compared to observation and patient outcomes may be worse in the observation group over time. Differences in outcome also were better explained through the Rankin Score at follow-up than by cognitive deficits.