A Pragmatic Randomized Trial Comparing Surgical Clipping and Endovascular Treatment of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Surgical clipping and endovascular treatment are commonly used in patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms. We compared the safety and efficacy of the 2 treatments in a randomized trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clipping or endovascular treatments were randomly allocated to patients with one or more 3- to 25-mm unruptured intracranial aneurysms judged treatable both ways by participating physicians. The study hypothesized that clipping would decrease the incidence of treatment failure from 13% to 4%, a composite primary outcome defined as failure of aneurysm occlusion, intracranial hemorrhage during follow-up, or residual aneurysms at 1 year, as adjudicated by a core lab. Safety outcomes included new neurologic deficits following treatment, hospitalization of >5 days, and overall morbidity and mortality (mRS > 2) at 1 year. There was no blinding. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-one patients were enrolled from 2010 to 2020 in 7 centers. The 1-year primary outcome, ascertainable in 290/291 (99%) patients, was reached in 13/142 (9%; 95% CI, 5%-15%) patients allocated to surgery and in 28/148 (19%; 95% CI, 13%-26%) patients allocated to endovascular treatments (relative risk: 2.07; 95% CI, 1.12-3.83; P = .021). Morbidity and mortality (mRS >2) at 1 year occurred in 3/143 and 3/148 (2%; 95% CI, 1%-6%) patients allocated to surgery and endovascular treatments, respectively. Neurologic deficits (32/143, 22%; 95% CI, 16%-30% versus 19/148, 12%; 95% CI, 8%-19%; relative risk: 1.74; 95% CI, 1.04-2.92; P = .04) and hospitalizations beyond 5 days (69/143, 48%; 95% CI, 40%-56% versus 12/148, 8%; 95% CI, 5%-14%; relative risk: 0.18; 95% CI, 0.11-0.31; P < .001) were more frequent after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical clipping is more effective than endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms in terms of the frequency of the primary outcome of treatment failure. Results were mainly driven by angiographic results at 1 year.

A randomized trial of endovascular versus surgical management of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: Interim results from ISAT2.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Appropriate management of ruptured intracranial aneurysm (RIA) in patients eligible for surgical clipping but under-represented in or excluded from previous randomized trials remains undetermined. METHODS: The International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial-2 (ISAT-2) is a randomized care trial comparing surgical versus endovascular treatment (EVT) of RIA. All patients considered for surgical clipping but eligible for endovascular treatment can be included. The primary endpoint is death or dependency on modified Rankin score (mRS>2) at 1 year. Secondary endpoints are 1 year angiographic results and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: An interim analysis was performed after 103 patients were treated from November 2012 to July 2017 in 4 active centers. Fifty-two of the 55 patients allocated to surgery were treated by clipping, and 45 of the 48 allocated to EVT were treated by coiling, with 3 crossovers in each arm. The main endpoint (1 year mRS>2), available for 76 patients, was reached in 16/42 patients allocated to clipping (38%; 95%CI: 25%-53%), and 10/34 patients allocated to coiling (29%; 17%-46%). One year imaging results were available in 54 patients: complete aneurysm occlusion was found in 23/27 patients allocated to clipping (85%; 67%-94%), and 18/27 patients allocated to coiling (67%; 47%-81%). Hospital stay exceeding 20 days was more frequent in surgery (26/55 [47%; 34%-60%]) than EVT (9/48 [19%; 10%-31%]). CONCLUSION: Ruptured aneurysm patients for whom surgical clipping may still be best can be managed in a randomized care trial, which is feasible in some centers. More participating centers are needed.