Background: Anterior communicating artery is one of the most frequent locations for the development of intracranial aneurysm. The availability and advances of different treatments modalities allows for case-specific selection, but potentially impacts our ability to assess equipoise among them.
Objective: Investigate and compare clinical and morphological variables among surgical and endovascular treatment groups with ruptured anterior communicating artery aneurysms.
Methods: Data from patients from a single university hospital treated for ruptured anterior communicating aneurysms after multidisciplinary discussion in a period from January 2009 to January 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, clinical status, aneurysm morphologic features and in-hospital complications were registered for each treatment (endovascular coiling vs. microsurgical clipping). Clinical assessment was made from outpatient evaluation at 1-year follow-up.
Results: A total of 119 patients was obtained adding surgical (n = 80) and endovascular (n = 39) treatment groups. No significant changes between groups were detected regarding gender, age of treatment or other risk factors. Global complication rate (p = 0.335, p = 0.225, p = 0.428) and clinical outcome (p = 0.802) was similar among both groups. Univariate and multivariate analysis revealed statistically significant differences between endovascular and surgical treatment groups regarding dome orientation (p = 0.011), aneurysm height (p < 0.001) and maximum diameter (p < 0.001), aspect-ratio (p < 0.001), dome-to-neck ratio (p < 0.001) and dome diameter (p = 0.014).
Conclusions: Despite similar clinical outcomes and rate of complications, morphological differences highlight the presence of a selection bias and high heterogeneity, which hampers inferential analysis when comparing both techniques.
Keywords: Aneurysm; Anterior communicating artery; Bias; Treatment.
© 2023 The Authors.