Citations

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.

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.