White, Phil

OBJECTIVE The placement of flow-diverting devices has become a common method of treating unruptured intracranial aneurysms of the internal carotid artery. The progressive improvement of aneurysm occlusion after treatment—with low complication and rupture rates—has led to a dilemma regarding the management of aneurysms in which occlusion has not occurred within 6–24 months. The authors aimed to identify clinical consensus regarding management of intracranial aneurysms displaying persistent filling 6–24 months after flow diversion and to ascertain questions that may drive future investigation. METHODS An international panel of 67 experts was invited to participate in a multistep Delphi consensus process on the treatment of intracranial aneurysms after failed flow diversion. RESULTS Of the 67 experts invited, 23 (34%) participated. Qualitative analysis of an initial survey with open-ended questions resulted in 51 statements regarding management of aneurysms showing persistent filling after flow diversion. The statements were grouped into 8 categories, and in the second round, respondents rated the degree of their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. Flow diverters with surface modifiers did not influence administration of dual-antiplatelet therapy according to 83%. Consensus was also reached regarding the definition of treatment failure at specific time points, including at 6 months if there is aneurysm growth or persistent rapid flow through the entirety of the aneurysm (96%), at 12 months if there is aneurysm growth or symptom onset (78%), and at 24 months if there is persistent filling regardless of size and filling characteristics (74%). Although experts agreed that the degree of intimal hyperplasia or in-device stenosis could not be ascertained by noninvasive imaging alone (83%), only 65% chose digital subtraction angiography as the preferred modality. At 6 and 12 months, retreatment is preferred if there is persistent filling with aneurysm growth (96%, 96%), device malposition (48%, 87%), or a history of subarachnoid hemorrhage (65%, 70%), respectively, and at 24 months if there is persistent filling without reduction in aneurysm size (74%). Experts favored treatment with an additional flow diverter (87%) over aneurysm clipping, applying the same principles for follow-up (83%) and treatment failure (91%) as for the first flow diverter. CONCLUSIONS The authors present the consensus practices of experts in the management of intracranial aneurysms without occlusion 6–24 months after treatment with a flow-diverting device.

Background and Purpose: The Hydrocoil Endovascular aneurysm occlusion and Packing Study (HELPS) was a randomized controlled trial comparing Hydrocoil to bare platinum coils . We performed a subgroup analysis of angiographic and clinical outcomes of medium sized aneurysms in the HELPS trial. Methods: We selected all patients with medium sized aneurysms (5mm-9.9mm) in the HELPS trial. The following outcomes were compared between the HydroCoil and control groups: 1) any recurrence, 2) major recurrence, 3) retreatment and 4) good neurological outcome defined as mRS≤2. Outcomes of recently ruptured and non-recently ruptured aneurysms were compared separately. Comparisons between groups were performed using Fisher’s exact test. A multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusting for aneurysm neck size, shape, use of adjunctive device and rupture status was performed. Results: A total of 288 patients with medium sized aneurysms were randomized (144 in each group). At 15-18 months post-treatment, major recurrence rate was significantly lower in the HydroCoil group than the control group (18.6% versus 30.8%, P=0.03, respectively). For recently ruptured aneurysm patients, major recurrence rate was significantly lower for HydroCoil than controls (20.3% versus 47.5%, P=0.003), while rates were similar between coil types for unruptured aneurysms (16.7% versus 14.8%, P=0.80). On multivariate analysis for patients with recently ruptured aneurysms, HydroCoil was associated with lower odds of any recurrence as compared to bare platinum (OR=0.37, 95%CI=0.18-0.76, P=0.006) and major recurrence (OR=0.27, 95%CI=0.12-0.58, P=0.0007). There was a trend towards lower retreatment rates in the recently ruptured group treated with HydroCoil (OR=0.00, 95%CI=0.00-2.01, P=0.12). Conclusion: For recently ruptured, medium sized aneurysms, as compared to bare platinum coils HydroCoils were associated with lower rates of major recurrence that were both statistically significant and clinically relevant. These findings suggest that HydroCoils should be the preferred treatment for this subset of patients.

New coils have been designed to preserve the safety of coil embolization while improving on long-term efficacy. There is currently no scientific evidence that one type of coil material is better than another. The recurrence problem may be more pressing in certain types of patients, such as patients with large aneurysms or those already presenting with angiographic recurrences.

The proliferation of new endovascular devices and therapeutic strategies calls for a prudent and rational evaluation of their clinical benefit. This evaluation must be done in an effective manner and in collaboration with industry. Such research initiative requires organisational and methodological support to survive and thrive in a competitive environment. We propose the formation of an international consortium, an academic alliance committed to the pursuit of effective neurovascular therapies. Such a consortium would be dedicated to the design and execution of basic science, device development and clinical trials. The Consortium is owned and operated by its members. Members are international leaders in neurointerventional research and clinical practice. The Consortium brings competency, knowledge, and expertise to industry as well as to its membership across a spectrum of research initiatives such as: expedited review of clinical trials, protocol development, surveys and systematic reviews; laboratory expertise and support for research design and grant applications to public agencies. Once objectives and protocols are approved, the Consortium provides a stable network of centers capable of timely realization of clinical trials or preclinical investigations in an optimal environment. The Consortium is a non-profit organization. The potential revenue generated from client-sponsored financial agreements will be re-directed to the academic and research objectives of the organization. The Consortium wishes to work in concert with industry, to support emerging trends in neurovascular therapeutic development. The Consortium is a realistic endeavour optimally structured to promote excellence through scientific appraisal of our treatments, and to accelerate technical progress while maximizing patients' safety and welfare.