Outcome of ruptured anterior communicating artery aneurysm treatment compared between surgical clipping and endovascular coiling: A single-center analysis.

Abstract

The optimal treatment modality for ruptured anterior communicating artery (ACoA) aneurysms is unclear. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to compare the outcomes of endovascular coiling and surgical clipping to treat ruptured ACoA aneurysms. A retrospective analysis of 213 consecutive patients with ruptured AcoA aneurysms, who were treated with coiling or clipping between January 2010 and December 2020, was conducted. Of the 213 patients, 94 and 119 underwent clipping and coiling, respectively. The mean age was higher in the coiling group than in the clipping group (60.3 ± 13.2 vs. 53.5 ± 13.4, P < .001). The mean diameter of the aneurysmal neck was larger in the clipping group (3.4 mm vs. 3.0 mm, P = .022), whereas the dome-to-neck ratio (1.53 ± 0.52 vs. 1.70 ± 0.60, P = .031) and aspect ratio (1.67 ± 0.51 vs. 1.92 ± 0.77, P = .005) were larger in the coiling group. The prevalence of vasospasm was higher in the clipping than in the coiling group (42.6% vs. 26.9%, P = .016). The coiling group had a shorter mean intensive care unit hospitalization (18.3 vs. 12.1, P = .002) and more frequently showed favorable outcomes (Glasgow Outcome Scale 4, 5; 57.4% vs 73.1%, P = .016) compared to the clipping group. Multivariable logistic analysis showed that good initial WFNS grade (odds ratio [OR] = 6.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.69–16.65, P < .001), treatment with coiling (OR = 3.67, 95% CI: 1.70–7.90, P = .001), and absence of the need for cerebrospinal fluid diversion (OR = 5.21, 95% CI: 2.38–11.39, P < .001) were independent predictors of favorable outcomes in patients with ruptured ACoA aneurysms. Ruptured ACoA aneurysms can be safely and effectively treated using both clipping and coiling modalities. However, it may be beneficial to consider coiling as the first option for treating these aneurysms.