Endovascular coil embolization of intracranial aneurysms: important factors related to rates and outcomes of incomplete occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The authors report on important factors that influenced clinical and angiographically demonstrated outcomes in patients treated using coil embolization. METHODS: This study included 160 consecutive patients who underwent endovascular coil embolization for treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess factors that influenced the immediate posttreatment angiographic result. Cox regression analysis was used to establish factors related to the occurrence of negative events as well as a curve indicating the time to a negative event. Negative events were defined as aneurysm remnant increase, repeated treatment, rebleeding, or death during periprocedural hospitalization. Seventy-three percent of the patients treated in this study were independent or demonstrated no deficit (Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOS] Score 4 or 5) at a mean follow up of 18.2 months. The annual delayed rebleeding rate was 0.45%. Fifty percent of patients (65 of 131) suffered a negative event within 13 +/- 14 months (standard deviation). Statistically significant factors associated with the occurrence of negative events were rupture status (p = 0.0128) and immediate posttreatment angiographic result (p < 0.001). Overall clinical outcome assessed using the GOS was significantly related to the immediate posttreatment angiographic result (chi2 = 4.788, p = 0.029). The immediate post-treatment angiographic results were significantly influenced by catheter stability (p = 0.0012), aneurysm geometry (that is, simple or complex, p = 0.0053), and aneurysm neck diameter (p = 0.0205). CONCLUSIONS: A good or excellent clinical outcome can be obtained in most patients treated using endovascular coil embolization of intracranial aneurysms. Note, however, that a significant number of patients treated using traditional platinum coils will harbor unstable aneurysm remnants or require repeated treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".