Stent-Assisted Coiling versus Coiling in Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Purpose

Stent-assisted coiling was initially invented for wide-neck aneurysms, but is now used for smaller berry aneurysms. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficiency of stent-assisted coiling with conventional coiling in treatment of intracranial aneurysms.

Methods

A meta-analysis of studies that compared stent-assisted coiling with coiling only was conducted by searching English literatures via Pubmed, Medline and Cochrane Library databases without restricting the publication year. The primary outcomes in this study were immediate occlusion, progressive thrombosis rate, all-complication rate and angiographic recurrence. The secondary outcomes examined were packing density, mortality, permanent complication and thromboembolic complication rate.

Results

Ten retrospective cohort studies were included. There is currently only one unfinished randomized study. Although the stent-assisted coiling group tended to show a lower initial occlusion rate than that of the coiling-only group (57.6% versus 68.7%; OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.30–1.44; P = 0.30), it achieved a significantly higher progressive thrombosis rate during follow up compared to that of the coiling only group (37.5% versus 19.4%; OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.95–3.86; P<0.00001) and a significantly lower recurrence rate (16.2% versus 34.4%; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25–0.49; P<0.00001). With respect to safety concerns, the all-complication rate (17.6% versus 15.9%; OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.77–1.62; P = 0.56), mortality rate (9.1% versus 2.6%; OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.68–7.82; P = 0.18), permanent complication rate (5.6% versus 3.9%; OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.96–2.41; P = 0.08) and thromboembolic complication rate (4.2% versus 4.9%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.41–2.38; P = 0.97) did not show significant difference between the two groups.

Conclusions

Stent-assisted coiling has a lower recurrence rate than conventional coiling. Analysis of complication events did not show any significant difference between the two methods. Despite the findings reported herein, further validation by well-designed prospective studies is needed.