Does Increasing Packing Density Using Larger Caliber Coils Improve Angiographic Results of Embolization of Intracranial Aneurysms at 1 Year: A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The impact of increased aneurysm packing density on angiographic outcomes has not been studied in a randomized trial. We sought to determine the potential for larger caliber coils to achieve higher packing densities and to improve the angiographic results of embolization of intracranial aneurysms at 1 year. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Does Embolization with Larger Coils Lead to Better Treatment of Aneurysms (DELTA) was an investigator-initiated multicenter prospective, parallel, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Patients had 4- to 12-mm unruptured aneurysms. Treatment allocation to either 15- (experimental) or 10-caliber coils (control group) was randomized 1:1 using a Web-based platform. The primary efficacy outcome was a major recurrence or a residual aneurysm at follow-up angiography at 12 ± 2 months adjudicated by an independent core lab blinded to the treatment allocation. Secondary outcomes included indices of treatment success and standard safety outcomes. Recruitment of 564 patients was judged necessary to show a decrease in poor outcomes from 33% to 20% with 15-caliber coils. RESULTS: Funding was interrupted and the trial was stopped after 210 patients were recruited between November 2013 and June 2017. On an intent-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome was reached in 37 patients allocated to 15-caliber coils and 36 patients allocated to 10-caliber coils (OR = 0.931; 95% CI, 0.528–1.644; P = .885). Safety and other clinical outcomes were similar. The 15-caliber coil group had a higher mean packing density (37.0% versus 26.9%, P = .0001). Packing density had no effect on the primary outcome when adjusted for initial angiographic results (OR = 1.001; 95% CI, 0.981–1.022; P = .879). CONCLUSIONS: Coiling of aneurysms randomized to 15-caliber coils achieved higher packing densities compared with 10-caliber coils, but this had no impact on the angiographic outcomes at 1 year, which were primarily driven by aneurysm size and initial angiographic results.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".