Steinmetz, Helmuth

Objective: We previously derived the Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysm Treatment Score (UIATS), designed using a multidisciplinary consensus approach among neurovascular specialists from diverse geographic and practice backgrounds. Here, we report on the development and validation of the final version of UIATS. Method: An international, multidisciplinary (neurosurgery, neuroradiology, neurology, clinical epidemiology) group of 69 (39 panel members and 30 blinded external reviewers) specialists in the research and treatment of UIAs was convened. A web survey-based Delphi consensus process consisting of 7 rounds was utilized to rate numerous features of potential relevance in the assessment and treatment of UIAs and to develop the UIATS. Mean ratings were repeatedly used to determine statistical weight for each factor and then transformed into corresponding scores for every item to create the UIATS. For internal and blinded external validation, 30 representative cases of patients with UIAs were used to test the level of agreement (5 point Likert Scale) with treatment recommendations based on the UIATS. Results: The final UIATS system was designed in three domains (patient-, aneurysm - and treatment-related), comprising 13 different categories and 29 different features (Figure 1). Mean agreement based on Likert scores (5 indicating strong agreement and 1 indicating strong disagreement) was 4·2 for both reviewer cohorts, whereas mean agreement per case was 4·2 (panel members) and 4·5 (external reviewers) (p=0·017, Mann-Whitney-U Test). Conclusion: The final version of UIATS system was internally and externally validated by a large multidisciplinary group of neurovascular specialists, which suggests that the UIATS reflects contemporary decision-making regarding management of a patient with an UIA. The UIATS may aid clinicians in deciding on the appropriate management for an UIA.

Background and Purpose— To address the increasing need to counsel patients about treatment indications for unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA), we endeavored to develop a consensus on assessment of UIAs among a group of specialists from diverse fields involved in research and treatment of UIAs. Methods— After composition of the research group, a Delphi consensus was initiated to identify and rate all features, which may be relevant to assess UIAs and their treatment by using ranking scales and analysis of inter-rater agreement (IRA) for each factor. IRA was categorized as very high, high, moderate, or low. Results— Ultimately, 39 specialists from 4 specialties agreed (high or very high IRAs) on the following key factors for or against UIA treatment decisions: (1) patient age, life expectancy, and comorbid diseases; (2) previous subarachnoid hemorrhage from a different aneurysm, family history for UIA or subarachnoid hemorrhage, nicotine use; (3) UIA size, location, and lobulation; (4) UIA growth or de novo formation on serial imaging; (5) clinical symptoms (cranial nerve deficit, mass effect, and thromboembolic events from UIAs); and (6) risk factors for UIA treatment (patient age and life expectancy, UIA size, and estimated risk of treatment). However, IRAs for features rated with low relevance were also generally low, which underlined the existing controversy about the natural history of UIAs. Conclusions— Our results highlight that neurovascular specialists currently consider many features as important when evaluating UIAs but also highlight that the appreciation of natural history of UIAs remains uncertain, even within a group of highly informed individuals.