Management of Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms in the Post-International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial Era: A Single-Centre Prospective Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) reported reduced morbidity in patients treated with endovascular coiling versus surgical clipping. However, recent studies suggest that there is no significant difference in clinical outcomes. This study examines the outcomes of either technique for treating aSAH during the 15 years post-ISAT at a Canadian quaternary centre. METHODS: We reviewed prospectively collected data of patients admitted with aSAH from January 2002 to December 2017. Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) was compared at discharge, 6 months and 12 months' follow-up using univariate and multivariable ordinal logistic regression. Post-operative complications were assessed using binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Two-hundred and eighty-seven patients were treated with coiling and 95 patients with clipping. The mean age of clipped patients was significantly younger, and hypertension was significantly commoner in coiled patients. A greater proportion of coiled aneurysms were located in the posterior circulation. No difference in the odds of having a favourable GOS was seen between patients who were clipped versus coiled at any of follow-up time points on univariate or multivariable analysis. In both treatment groups, patient recovery to independence (GOS 4-5) was seen from discharge to 6 months, but not from 6 to 12 months' follow-up, without difference between clipping and coiling. CONCLUSION: These real-world findings suggest clipping remains an effective and important treatment option for patients with aSAH who do not meet ISAT inclusion criteria. The results can assist in clinical decision-making processes and understanding of the natural recovery progression of aSAH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".