Outcome After Clipping and Coiling for Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage in Clinical Practice in Europe, USA, and Australia

Neurosurgery 84:1019–1027, 2019

Within randomized clinical trials (RCTs), coiling of the ruptured aneurysm to prevent rebleeding results in better outcomes than clipping in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH).

OBJECTIVE: To study the association of coiling and clipping with outcome after aSAH in daily clinical practice.

METHODS: In this controlled, nonrandomized study, we compared outcomes after endovascular coiling and neurosurgical clipping of ruptured intracranial aneurysms in an administrative dataset of 7658 aSAH patients (22 tertiary care hospitals from Europe, USA, Australia; 2007-2013). Because the results contradicted those of the randomized trials, findings were further explored in a large clinical dataset from 2 European centers (2006- 2016) of 1501 patients.

RESULTS: In the administrative dataset, the crude 14-d case-fatality rate was 6.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.6%-7.2%) after clipping and 8.2% (95% CI 7.4%-9.1%) after coiling. After adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidity/severity, the odds ratio (OR) for 14-d casefatality after coiling compared to clipping was 1.32 (95% CI 1.10-1.58). In the clinical dataset crude 14-d case fatality ratewas 5.7% (95% CI 4.2%-7.8%) for clipping and 9.0% (95% CI 7.3%- 11.2%) for coiling. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, the OR for 14-d case-fatality after coiling compared to clipping was 1.7 (95% CI 1.1–2.7), for 90-d case-fatality 1.28 (95% CI 0.91–1.82) and for 90-d poor functional outcome 0.78 (95% CI 0.6–1.01).

CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, coiling after aSAH is associated with higher 14-d case-fatality than clipping and nonsuperior outcomes at 90 d. Both options need to be considered in aSAH patients. Further studies should address the reasons for the discrepancy between current data and those from the RCTs.

Microvascular Decompression for Classic Trigeminal Neuralgia

MVD vascular compression

Neurosurgery 72:749–754, 2013

Outcomes studies use patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements to assess treatment effectiveness, but can lack direct clinical meaning. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) calculation provides a point estimate of the critical threshold needed to achieve clinically relevant treatment effectiveness. MCID remains uninvestigated for microvascular decompression (MVD), a common surgical procedure for trigeminal neuralgia. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine MCID for the most commonly used PRO measures of pain after MVD: Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Barrow Neurological Institute Pain Scale (BNI-PS).

METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients with classic trigeminal neuralgia who decided to undergo MVD by a single surgeon were prospectively assessed with VAS and BNI-PS preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. Three anchors were used to assign each patient’s outcome. We then used 3 well-established, anchor-based methods to calculate MCID.

RESULTS: Patients experienced significant improvement in both VAS (9.9 vs 2.0, P < .001) and BNI-PS (5.0 vs 1.9, P < .001) after MVD. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was greater for BNI-PS than for VAS for all 3 anchors, indicating that BNI-PS is probably better suited for calculating MCID. The 3 MCID calculation methods generated a range of MCID values for each of the PROs (VAS: 1.40-8.87, BNI-PS: 0.95-3.26).

CONCLUSION: MVD-specific MCID is highly variable based on calculation technique. Some of these calculations appear to either overestimate or underestimate the patients’ preoperative expectations. When the different MCID methods are averaged, the results are clinically appropriate and consistent with preoperative expectations. The average MCID for VAS is 6.25 and for BNI-PS is 2.44.