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.

Research participants may not recall their participation but have a better understanding of alternative management options than patients in routine care.

BACKGROUND: Patient understanding of care interventions, of the clinical uncertainty, and of their participation in clinical research is often poor. We hypothesized that compared to routine care, patients would better understand the prevailing uncertainty when they participated in research. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to patients at the time they attended a follow-up neurovascular clinic 4 to 52 weeks after a care episode where they did or did not participate in a clinical trial. Patients were not reminded whether they had previously participated in a clinical trial. Questions concerned their understanding of the risks/benefits of interventions, the availability of alternative options, whether their personal opinion was taken into consideration, the reason for the final decision, their confidence at having received the best management, and whether they had been research participants. RESULTS: Between June 2019 and June 2020, 167 patients were recruited; 71 had truly been research participants, while 96 had not. A greater proportion of research patients were aware of the existence of management alternatives (65% versus 44%; P=0.008). Patients of both groups believed their personal opinion counted in the final decision (76% versus 70%), and patients were equally confident that they had received the best management (94%). Research patients believed they had participated in research 46% of the time, compared to 12% of routine care patients (P=0.003). CONCLUSION: Many patients do not recall that they participated in a clinical trial, but they have a better understanding of the clinical uncertainty and of the availability of alternative management options.

Inter-rater reliability of the simplified Modified Rankin Scale as an outcome measure for treated cerebral aneurysm patients.

BACKGROUND: The modified Rankin scale (mRS) is commonly used as a clinical outcome measure in aneurysm trials, but inter-observer reliability in treated patients has not been tested. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on inter-observer reliability studies of the mRS. Sixty patients with ruptured (n=47) or unruptured (n=13) aneurysms treated with endovascular methods (n=34) or surgical clipping (n=26) were independently evaluated by a neurosurgeon, a stroke neurologist, and a novice research assistant, and a simplified mRS score assigned. Results were analyzed using Gwet's AC1/2 reliability coefficients (KG). RESULTS: No previous reports validating the reliability of the mRS in treated aneurysm patients were identified. Using the mRS 0-5, inter-rater agreement was almost perfect (KG=0.89 [0.86-0.93]). Agreement between raters remained almost perfect regardless of the rater's expertise. Agreement was almost perfect (KG=0.87 [0.77-0.96] when the mRS was dichotomized 0-2 vs 3-5, but fell to moderate when dichotomized 0-1 vs 2-5 (KG=0.59 (0.42-0.75). Agreement using the 0-2 vs 3-5 dichotomized mRS remained almost perfect for coiled (KG=0.90), clipped (KG=0.82), ruptured (KG=0.84), and unruptured (KG=0.95) aneurysms. Dichotomization of results at 0-1 vs 2-5 would have resulted in an (undesirable) significant difference in good outcomes between raters (P=.003), but not at 0-2 vs 3-5 (P=.52). CONCLUSION: The simplified mRS appears to be a reliable clinical outcome measure for treated cerebral aneurysm patients. When needed, dichotomization is more reliable at mRS 0-2 vs 3-5 than at 0-1 vs 2-5. The simplified mRS is a promising tool in the functional assessment of aneurysm patients recruited in pragmatic care trials.

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.

Noninvasive Angiographic Results of Clipped or Coiled Intracranial Aneurysms: An Inter- and Intraobserver Reliability Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Noninvasive angiography is commonly used to assess the outcome of surgical or endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms in clinical series or randomized trials. We sought to assess whether a standardized 3-grade classification system could be reliably used to compare the CTA and MRA results of both treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic portfolio composed of CTAs of 30 clipped and MRAs of 30 coiled aneurysms was independently evaluated by 24 raters of diverse experience and training backgrounds. Twenty raters performed a second evaluation 1 month later. Raters were asked which angiographic grade and management decision (retreatment; close or long-term follow-up) would be most appropriate for each case. Agreement was analyzed using the Krippendorff α (αK) statistic, and the relationship between angiographic grade and clinical management choice, using the Fisher exact and Cramer V tests. RESULTS: Interrater agreement was substantial (αK = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.55-0.70); results were slightly better for MRA results of coiling (αK = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.76) than for CTA results of clipping (αK = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.69). Intrarater agreement was substantial to almost perfect. Interrater agreement regarding clinical management was moderate for both clipped (αK = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.61) and coiled subgroups (αK = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.54). The choice of clinical management was strongly associated with the size of the residuum (mean Cramer V = 0.77 [SD, 0.14]), but complete occlusions (grade 1) were followed more closely after coiling than after clipping (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized 3-grade scale was found to be a reliable and clinically meaningful tool to compare the results of clipping and coiling of aneurysms using CTA or MRA.

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.

Reliability of CT Angiography in Cerebral Vasospasm: A Systematic Review of the Literature and an Inter- and Intraobserver Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Computed tomography angiography offers a non-invasive alternative to DSA for the assessment of cerebral vasospasm following subarachnoid hemorrhage but there is limited evidence regarding its reliability. Our aim was to perform a systematic review (Part I) and to assess (Part II) the inter- and intraobserver reliability of CTA in the diagnosis of cerebral vasospasm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In Part I, articles reporting the reliability of CTA up to May 2018 were systematically searched and evaluated. In Part II, 11 raters independently graded 17 arterial segments in each of 50 patients with SAH for the presence of vasospasm using a 4-category scale. Raters were additionally asked to judge the presence of any moderate/severe vasospasm (≥ 50% narrowing) and whether findings would justify augmentation of medical treatment or conventional angiography ± balloon angioplasty. Four raters took part in the intraobserver reliability study. RESULTS: In Part I, the systematic review revealed few studies with heterogeneous vasospasm definitions. In Part II, we found interrater reliability to be moderate at best (κ ≤ 0.6), even when results were stratified according to specialty and experience. Intrarater reliability was substantial (κ > 0.6) in 3/4 readers. In the per arterial segment analysis, substantial agreement was reached only for the middle cerebral arteries, and only when senior raters' judgments were dichotomized (presence or absence of ≥50% narrowing). Agreement on the medical or angiographic management of vasospasm based on CTA alone was less than substantial (κ ≤ 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of vasospasm using CTA alone was not sufficiently repeatable among observers to support its general use to guide decisions in the clinical management of patients with SAH.

Agreement studies in radiology research.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to estimate the frequency and the quality of agreement studies published in diagnostic imaging journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All studies published between January 2011 and December 2012 in four radiology journals were reviewed. Four trained readers evaluated agreement studies using a 24-item form that included the 15 items of the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies criteria. RESULTS: Of 2229 source titles, 280 studies (13%) reported agreement. The mean number of patients per study was 81±99 (SD) (range, 0-180). Justification for sample size was found in 9 studies (3%). The number of raters was≤2 in 226 studies (81%). No intra-observer study was performed in 212 (76%) articles. Confidence intervals and interpretation of statistical estimates were provided in 98 (35%) and 147 (53%) of the studies, respectively. In 168 studies (60%), the agreement study was not mentioned in the discussion section. In 8 studies (3%), reporting of the agreement study was judged to be adequate. Twenty studies (7%) were dedicated to agreement. CONCLUSION: Agreement studies are preliminary and not adequately reported. Studies dedicated to agreement are infrequent. They are research opportunities that should be promoted.

Flow diverters: inter and intra-rater reliability of porosity and pore density measurements.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Porosity and pore density (PD) are important characteristics of flow diverters (FDs), because they may influence device efficacy and safety. Reliable measurement of these parameters would seem to be required for comparisons between devices, device selection at the time of clinical usage, as well as for research purposes. Because there is no standard method of measurement, our aim was to assess the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of PD measurements and of three different ways of measuring porosity. METHODS: Six microphotographs of two fully deployed FDs were taken overlying two different millimetric reference grids: one flat and the other corrected to match the cylindrical stent. Standardized protocols for independently measuring PD and porosity according to three different methods were used by three trained observers and by the same observer twice. Bland-Altman plots and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to study the reliability of the measurements. RESULTS: For porosity, satisfactory agreement occurred only when the same method of measurement was performed by the same observer. Intra-observer and inter-observer agreement were poor for measures of porosity when different methods were used (with differences in the range of 5-10%, ICC <0.6 for all methods). Measurement of PD was more reliable within (ICC 0.991 (0.946 to 0.999)) and between (ICC 0.945 (0.781 to 0.991)) observers. CONCLUSIONS: Without standardization, the porosity of different devices cannot reliably be compared because use of different methods or different observers substantially changes results. Pore density seems to be more reliably measured than porosity.