COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Clipping versus coiling for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular treatment has increasingly been used for aneurismal subarachnoid aneurismal hemorrhage. The aim of this analysis is to assess the current evidence regarding safety and efficiency of clipping compared with coiling.

METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of studies that compared clipping with coiling between January 1999 and July 2012. Comparison of binary outcomes between treatment groups was described using odds ratios (OR; clip versus coil).

RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials and 23 observational studies were included. Randomized controlled trials showed that coiling reduced the 1-year unfavorable outcome rate (OR, 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-1.76). However, there was no statistical deference in nonrandomized controlled trials (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.96-1.28). Subgroup analysis revealed coiling yielded better outcomes for patients with good preoperative grade (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24-1.84) than for poor preoperative patients (OR, 0.88; 95% CI 0.56-1.38). Additionally, the incidence of rebleeding is higher after coiling (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.28-0.66), corresponding to a better complete occlusion rate of clipping (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.88-3.13). The 1-year mortality showed no significant difference (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88-1.30). Vasospasm was more common after clipping (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.07-1.91), whereas the ischemic infarct (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.52-1.06), shunt-dependent hydrocephalus (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-1.07), and procedural complication rates (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.67-2.11) did not differ significantly between techniques.

CONCLUSIONS: Coiling yields a better clinical outcome, the benefit being greater in those with a good preoperative grade than those with a poor preoperative grade. However, coiling leads to a greater risk of rebleeding. Well-designed randomized trials with special considerations to the aspect are needed.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app