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.

Transcranial Doppler Velocities and Angiographic Vasospasm after SAH: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: After aneurysmal SAH, transcranial Doppler is commonly used to monitor cerebral vasospasm. The diagnostic accuracy of transcranial Doppler flow velocity values in detecting angiographic vasospasm in patients requiring urgent endovascular intervention has not been established. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of patients with aneurysmal SAH who underwent transcranial Doppler (index test) within 24 hours of conventional angiography (reference test). The judgment of 33%, 50%, and 66% degree of vessel narrowing on angiography was independently established by multiple neuroendovascular clinicians. Vessel-specific per-segment and per-patient transcranial Doppler velocities were studied using receiver operating characteristic curves, the Youden index, and minimal acceptable sensitivity models. Optimal mean flow-velocity thresholds were explored to calculate sensitivity and specificity using a per-patient judgment of vasospasm of at least 50% angiographic narrowing in any large arterial segment except A1. RESULTS: In 221 patients, vasospasm was found in 15%, 8%, and 4% of arteries when the degree of reference angiographic luminal narrowing was 33%, 50%, and 66%, respectively. Mean flow velocities were significantly higher in vasospastic segments (P = . 001), but per-segment exploratory analyses yielded unsound mean flow velocity thresholds. The Youden and minimal acceptable sensitivity models proposed mean flow velocity thresholds of approximately 160 cm/s for the anterior circulation and 80 cm/s for the posterior circulation in the per-patient diagnosis of angiographic vasospasm (≥50%), yielding a sensitivity of 80%-90% (95% CI, 0.77-0.96), but with a corresponding specificity of 50% (95% CI, 0.40-0.56). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a threshold transcranial Doppler mean flow-velocity value that would accurately diagnose ≥50% angiographic vasospasm remained elusive.

Repeat resection in recurrent glioblastoma (3rGBM) Trial: A randomized care trial.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis for patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) is dismal, and the question of repeat surgery at time of recurrence is common. Re-operation in the management of these patients remains controversial, as there is no randomized evidence of benefit. An all-inclusive pragmatic care trial is needed to evaluate the role of repeat resection. METHODS: 3rGBM is a multicenter, pragmatic, prospective, parallel-group randomized care trial, with 1:1 allocation to repeat resection or standard care with no repeat resection. To test the hypothesis that repeat resection can improve overall survival by at least 3 months (from 6 to 9 months), 250 adult patients with prior resection of pathology-proven glioblastoma for whom the attending surgeon believes repeat resection may improve quality survival will be enrolled. A surrogate measure of quality of life, the number of days outside of hospital/nursing/palliative care facility, will also be compared. Centers are invited to participate without financial compensation and without contracts. Clinicians may apply to local authorities to approve an investigator-led in-house trial, using a common protocol, web-based randomization platform, and simple standardized case report forms. DISCUSSION: The 3rGBM trial is a modern transparent care research framework with no additional risks, tests, or visits other than what patients would encounter in normal care. The burden of proof remains on repeat surgical management of recurrent GBM, because this management has yet to be shown beneficial. The trial is designed to help patients and surgeons manage the uncertainty regarding optimal care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT04838782.

Reliability of the Diagnosis of Cerebral Vasospasm Using Catheter Cerebral Angiography: A Systematic Review and Inter- and Intraobserver Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Conventional angiography is the benchmark examination to diagnose cerebral vasospasm, but there is limited evidence regarding its reliability. Our goals were the following: 1) to systematically review the literature on the reliability of the diagnosis of cerebral vasospasm using conventional angiography, and 2) to perform an agreement study among clinicians who perform endovascular treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Articles reporting a classification system on the degree of cerebral vasospasm on conventional angiography were systematically searched, and agreement studies were identified. We assembled a portfolio of 221 cases of patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage and asked 17 raters with different backgrounds (radiology, neurosurgery, or neurology) and experience (junior ≤10 and senior >10 years) to independently evaluate cerebral vasospasm in 7 vessel segments using a 3-point scale and to evaluate, for each case, whether findings would justify endovascular treatment. Nine raters took part in the intraobserver reliability study. RESULTS: The systematic review showed a very heterogeneous literature, with 140 studies using 60 different nomenclatures and 21 different thresholds to define cerebral vasospasm, and 5 interobserver studies reporting a wide range of reliability (κ = 0.14-0.87). In our study, only senior raters reached substantial agreement (κ ≥ 0.6) on vasospasm of the supraclinoid ICA, M1, and basilar segments and only when assessments were dichotomized (presence or absence of ≥50% narrowing). Agreement on whether to proceed with endovascular management of vasospasm was only fair (κ ≤ 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Research on cerebral vasospasm would benefit from standardization of definitions and thresholds. Dichotomized decisions by experienced readers are required for the reliable angiographic diagnosis of cerebral vasospasm.