Contemporary adverse event profile of microsurgery for intracranial unruptured aneurysms in high-volume microsurgical centers: the international PRAEMIUM study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: Objective values on procedural risk are essential to facilitate informed consent and optimize clinical decision-making in patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs). While robust heuristics, such as the PHASES (population, hypertension, age, size of aneurysm, earlier subarachnoid hemorrhage, and site of aneurysm) score, are established for predicting rupture risk, contemporary and granular benchmarks for procedural safety remain scarce. The multinational Prediction of Adverse Events After Microsurgery for Intracranial Unruptured Aneurysms (PRAEMIUM) study aims to comprehensively characterize contemporary adverse event rates following microsurgical treatment at high-volume expert centers, stratified by aneurysm location, morphology, and complexity factors to better inform individual risk/benefit analyses. METHODS: A cohort study among 20 participating expert centers from 9 countries was established. Patients treated microsurgically for UIAs were included. The authors describe the epidemiology of treated patients and UIAs and a comprehensive adverse event profile using 3 outcomes measured at hospital discharge: 1) poor neurological outcome (modified Rankin Scale score ≥ 3), 2) new sensorimotor neurological deficits, and 3) all-cause adverse events (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 1). Subgroup reports were given for aneurysm location, morphology, and complexity factors (prior aneurysm treatment, calcifications, complex angioanatomy involving critical branch vessels or perforators, and thrombosis). The authors purposely chose discharge as the time point to capture early postoperative risks and complications in patients with asymptomatic UIAs, for whom preserving neurological function is paramount. RESULTS: The cohort included 3705 patients (mean age 56 [SD 12] years, 28% male). Overall, at discharge 13.9% of patients (95% CI 12.8%-15.0%) had poor neurological functional outcomes, 14.4% (95% CI 13.3%-15.5%) had new sensorimotor deficits, and 24.1% (95% CI 22.8%-25.5%) experienced all-cause adverse events. Poor neurological outcomes ranged from 8.5% (M1 aneurysms) to 37.4% (posterior circulation aneurysms), neurological deficits from 9.3% (distal anterior cerebral artery [ACA] aneurysms) to 34.2% (posterior circulation aneurysms), and all-cause adverse events from 21.2% (distal ACA aneurysms) to 31.3% (posterior circulation aneurysms). Dissecting and fusiform aneurysms showed notably high rates of poor neurological outcomes (22.0%-33.3%), new deficits (25.4%-26.7%), and adverse events (26.7%-37.0%). Complexity factors significantly influenced outcomes, with prior treatment (22.9%, 19.7%, and 30.1%), calcification (16.3%, 18.1%, and 30.5%), complex angioanatomy (13.1%, 15.9%, and 26.9%), and thrombosis (19.6%, 23.9%, and 39.6%) notably increasing the risks for poor neurological outcomes, deficits, and adverse events, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This large international cohort provides contemporary benchmarks for microsurgical treatment of UIAs, emphasizing variability in outcomes based on aneurysm location, morphology, and complexity. The presented granular and quotable adverse event rates support informed patient counseling and individualized risk/benefit assessments in comparable high-volume centers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».