• Damian Kocur, Nikodem Przybyłko, Piotr Bażowski, and Jan Baron.
• Medical University of Silesia, School of Medicine in Katowice, Department of Neurosurgery, Katowice, Poland. Electronic address: damkocur@gmail.com.
• Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018 Feb 1; 165: 81-87.

IntroductionThe intraprocedural aneurysm rupture (IPR) is one of the most feared adverse effect associated with the coil embolization therapy. The aim of the study was to identify predisposing factors for IPR, as well as to define patient groups with worse clinical outcome following IPR.Patients And MethodsFrom February 2008 to March 2015, 273 consecutive patients were treated at our institution via endovascular coil embolization. Patient medical records were reviewed with emphasis on procedure description, potential risk factors and clinical outcomes related to IPR. The IPR occurred in 14 (5.13%) cases. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine independent predictors of IPR. Clinical outcome was analyzed using the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS).ResultsMultivariate analysis showed that aneurysm location at posterior communicating artery is an independent risk factor for IPR (p = 0.035; OR 3.5; 95%CI 1.09-11.26). The frequencies of favorable disability (GOS 4-5), severe disability (GOS 2-3), and mortality (GOS 1) between patients with IPR and without IPR were significantly different in the general study population (p < 0.001, p < 0.001 and p = 0.023, respectively) and in patients with previously unruptured aneurysms (p < 0.001, p = 0.006 and p = 0.003, respectively) but not in patients with previously ruptured aneurysms (p = 0.187, p = 0.089 and p = 1.0, respectively).ConclusionPosterior communicating artery aneurysm location is an independent predictor for IPR. IPR is associated with a significant clinical deterioration in a subgroup of patients with previously unruptured aneurysms, but not in patients with ruptured aneurysms.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

33 keywords...

hide…