Citations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) are increasingly detected and require careful management to prevent rupture. No externally validated score currently predicts procedural risk to guide treatment decisions. We developed and validated 2 predictive scores for complications after endovascular treatment (EVT) or neurosurgical treatment (NT) of UIA using routinely collected clinical and aneurysmal features. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study including patients with UIA treated with EVT or NT across 15 neurovascular centers (2014-2024). Predictive models were built using multivariable logistic regression, with variables derived from Delphi consensus. The primary outcome was a composite safety end point: new neurological deficits, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) worsening (≥1 point or mRS 2-5 within 30 days), or procedural death. Internal validation used bootstrapping, and external validation was performed temporally and institutionally. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration. Final scores, named Morbidity and Mortality Associated Risk in the Treatment of UIAs (MARTA)-EVT and MARTA-NT, were compared with existing models identified through systematic review. RESULTS: Among 2647 patients (1907 EVT and 740 NT), procedural complications occurred in 6.3% (EVT) and 12.8% (NT). Independent predictors included age, baseline mRS, aneurysm location, size, morphology, and procedural factors. MARTA-EVT (AUROC = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.57-0.78) and MARTA-NT (AUROC = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.54-0.77) showed moderate discrimination and good calibration. MARTA-EVT outperformed existing models; MARTA-NT performed similarly to SAFETEA. Predictive models are available open-source: https://martascoreapp.shinyapps.io/martascoreapp/. CONCLUSION: MARTA-EVT and MARTA-NT are validated tools for predicting procedural risks in UIA treatment and may support patient counseling and clinical decision making.

OBJECTIVE Objective values on procedural risk are essential to facilitate informed consent and optimize clinical decision-making in patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs). While robust heuristics, such as the PHASES (population, hypertension, age, size of aneurysm, earlier subarachnoid hemorrhage, and site of aneurysm) score, are established for predicting rupture risk, contemporary and granular benchmarks for procedural safety remain scarce. The multinational Prediction of Adverse Events After Microsurgery for Intracranial Unruptured Aneurysms (PRAEMIUM) study aims to comprehensively characterize contemporary adverse event rates following microsurgical treatment at high-volume expert centers, stratified by aneurysm location, morphology, and complexity factors to better inform individual risk/benefit analyses. METHODS A cohort study among 20 participating expert centers from 9 countries was established. Patients treated microsurgically for UIAs were included. The authors describe the epidemiology of treated patients and UIAs and a comprehensive adverse event profile using 3 outcomes measured at hospital discharge: 1) poor neurological outcome (modified Rankin Scale score ≥ 3), 2) new sensorimotor neurological deficits, and 3) all-cause adverse events (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 1). Subgroup reports were given for aneurysm location, morphology, and complexity factors (prior aneurysm treatment, calcifications, complex angioanatomy involving critical branch vessels or perforators, and thrombosis). The authors purposely chose discharge as the time point to capture early postoperative risks and complications in patients with asymptomatic UIAs, for whom preserving neurological function is paramount. RESULTS The cohort included 3705 patients (mean age 56 [SD 12] years, 28% male). Overall, at discharge 13.9% of patients (95% CI 12.8%–15.0%) had poor neurological functional outcomes, 14.4% (95% CI 13.3%–15.5%) had new sensorimotor deficits, and 24.1% (95% CI 22.8%–25.5%) experienced all-cause adverse events. Poor neurological outcomes ranged from 8.5% (M1 aneurysms) to 37.4% (posterior circulation aneurysms), neurological deficits from 9.3% (distal anterior cerebral artery [ACA] aneurysms) to 34.2% (posterior circulation aneurysms), and all-cause adverse events from 21.2% (distal ACA aneurysms) to 31.3% (posterior circulation aneurysms). Dissecting and fusiform aneurysms showed notably high rates of poor neurological outcomes (22.0%–33.3%), new deficits (25.4%–26.7%), and adverse events (26.7%–37.0%). Complexity factors significantly influenced outcomes, with prior treatment (22.9%, 19.7%, and 30.1%), calcification (16.3%, 18.1%, and 30.5%), complex angioanatomy (13.1%, 15.9%, and 26.9%), and thrombosis (19.6%, 23.9%, and 39.6%) notably increasing the risks for poor neurological outcomes, deficits, and adverse events, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This large international cohort provides contemporary benchmarks for microsurgical treatment of UIAs, emphasizing variability in outcomes based on aneurysm location, morphology, and complexity. The presented granular and quotable adverse event rates support informed patient counseling and individualized risk/benefit assessments in comparable high-volume centers.

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.