Single-layer spherical (SLS) vs single-layer (SL) Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device in the treatment of narrow-neck intracranial aneurysms: a propensity score-matched analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

Data on the use of Woven EndoBridge (WEB) devices in the treatment of narrow-neck intracranial aneurysms (NNA) are limited. We compared the efficacy and safety of single-layer (SL) and single-layer spherical (SLS) WEB devices in treating NNA. We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis of adult patients with NNA (neck ≤ 4 mm and width-to-neck ratio ≥ 2) treated with SL or SLS WEB devices between January 2011 and December 2022. Patients with fusiform or blister aneurysms, adjunctive treatments, or devices other than SL or SLS were excluded. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for confounding variables. Outcomes included procedural complications, angiographic occlusion rates using the Raymond Roy classification, major device compaction, need for retreatment, and functional outcomes assessed by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). After matching, resulting in 101 patients in each group, baseline characteristics were well-balanced. Thromboembolic complications occurred in 2.0% of the SLS group and 5.9% of the SL group (P = 0.28). Hemorrhagic complications occurred in 1.0% of the SLS group and 6.4% of the SL group (P = 0.062). Adequate occlusion rates (Raymond Roy grades I and II) were similar between groups (96% in SLS vs. 91% in SL; P = 0.20). Major device compaction was significantly less frequent in the SLS group compared to the SL group (0% vs. 7.6%; P = 0.024). The need for retreatment trended to be lower in the SLS group (1.1% vs. 6.6% in SL; P = 0.12). Functional outcomes (mRS 0–1) at last follow-up were comparable (82% in SLS vs. 86% in SL; P = 0.41). In the treatment of narrow-neck intracranial aneurysms, the SLS WEB device was associated with significantly lower rates of major device compaction compared to the SL device. Reduced compaction may lead to a lower need for retreatment. Overall imaging outcomes and safety profiles were similar between the two devices.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.