Flow diversion of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a single-center study with a standardized antithrombotic treatment protocol

Anni Rantamo*, Camille Gallé, Jussi Numminen, Jyri Virta, Päivi Tanskanen, Ann-Christine Lindroos, Julio Resendiz-Nieves, Martin Lehecka, Mika Niemelä, Roel Haeren, Rahul Raj

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of antithrombotic medication following acute flow diversion for a ruptured intracranial aneurysm (IA) is challenging with no current guidelines. We investigated the incidence of treatment-related complications and patient outcomes after flow diversion for a ruptured IA before and after the implementation of a standardized antithrombotic medication protocol. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective study including consecutive patients treated for acutely ruptured IAs with flow diversion during 2015-2023. We divided the patients into two groups: those treated before the implementation of the protocol (pre-protocol) and those treated after the implementation of the protocol (post-protocol). The primary outcomes were hemorrhagic and ischemic complications. A secondary outcome was clinical outcome using the modified Ranking Scale (mRS). RESULTS: Totally 39 patients with 40 ruptured IAs were treated with flow diversion (69% pre-protocol, 31% post-protocol). The patient mean age was 55 years, 62% were female, 63% of aneurysms were in the posterior circulation, 92% of aneurysms were non-saccular, and 44% were in poor grade on admission. Treatment differences included the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (pre-group 48% vs. post-group 100%), and the use of early dual antiplatelets (pre-group 44% vs. 92% post-group). The incidence of ischemic complications was 37% and 42% and the incidence of hemorrhagic complications was 30% and 33% in the pre- and post-groups, respectively, with no between-group differences. There were three (11%) aneurysm re-ruptures in the pre-group and none in the post-group. There were no differences in mortality or mRS 0-2 between the groups at 6 months. CONCLUSION: We found no major differences in the incidence of ischemic or hemorrhagic complications after the implementation of a standardized antithrombotic protocol for acute flow diversion for ruptured IAs. There is an urgent need for more evidence-based guidelines to optimize antithrombotic treatment after flow diversion in the setting of subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Original languageEnglish
Article number130
Number of pages10
JournalActa Neurochirurgica
Volume166
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 11 Mar 2024

Keywords

  • Antithrombotic medication
  • Dual antiplatelet therapy
  • Flow diversion
  • Flow diverter
  • Intensive care
  • Intracranial aneurysm
  • Subarachnoid hemorrhage
  • Humans
  • Female
  • Middle Aged
  • Male
  • Intracranial Aneurysm/drug therapy surgery etiology
  • Fibrinolytic Agents/therapeutic use
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Endovascular Procedures/methods
  • Aneurysm, Ruptured/drug therapy surgery etiology
  • Embolization, Therapeutic/methods
  • Clinical Protocols
  • Stents

Cite this