Contemporary adverse event profile of microsurgery for intracranial unruptured aneurysms in high-volume microsurgical centers: the international PRAEMIUM study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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".