The impact of initial counselling for patients' decision-making and the accuracy of interdisciplinary neurovascular board evaluation in elective treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms - a German single-centre retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Interdisciplinary-neurovascular-boards (INVB) are deemed to find the patient's optimum treatment-modality in elective unruptured intracranial aneurysm-repair (EUIAR). If INVB judges risk/success estimation similar for microsurgical/endovascular EUIAR, the choice for either modality is up to the informed patient. However, it is unknown if the patients' decision-making might be biased by the discipline of initial counselling prior to INVB and if INVB's equal risk/success estimation is finally accurate. METHODS: We analysed all our patients with EUIAR after INVB-discussion between 2007 and 2017 and identified those patients where INVB-recommendation estimated similar risk/success rates for both treatment-modalities. We investigated the procedural/outcome parameters and determined if the mode of initial counselling prior to INVB influenced the patients' choice of EUIAR and if INVB's equal risk/success estimation was accurate. RESULTS: Within altogether 572 patients with EUIAR during our study period, we identified 99 patients (agemean:58 yrs; m:f=1:2) in whom pre-treatment INVB-discussion estimated risk/success rates for both modalities of EUIAR to be similar. Prior to INVB-discussion, 80 of the 99 patients had been initially counselled in the neurosurgical discipline and 19 patients in the endovascular discipline. The final patients' decision rates for surgical vs. endovascular EUIAR (after secondary consultation of each patient in both disciplines after INVB-discussion) were 67% vs. 33% in the first and 58% vs. 42% in the latter group (no significant difference: p = 0.345). Uni- and multivariate analysis did not show any hints for a bias in patients' decision-making caused by the discipline of initial counselling prior to INVB/secondary bilateral consultations. Clinical and procedural outcome at last follow-up (median:18mos) did not differ between those 66 patients that eventually decided for microsurgical and those 33 patients that eventually decided for endovascular EUIAR, underlining the high accuracy of INVB's pre-treatment risk/success estimations. CONCLUSION: Only in a small number of patients, INVB estimates both disciplines to be of equal value for EUIAR which proves to be highly accurate at long-term outcome measures. Initial contact to one or the other neurovascular discipline does not appear to play a significant role in the final patient's decision-making process.