You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 9, Issue 3
  • Clinical outcome after surgical clipping or endovascular coiling for cerebral aneurysms: a pragmatic meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials with short- and long-term follow-up

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Hemorrhagic stroke
Original research
Clinical outcome after surgical clipping or endovascular coiling for cerebral aneurysms: a pragmatic meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials with short- and long-term follow-up
  1. Alberto Falk Delgado1,
  2. Tommy Andersson2,3,4,
  3. Anna Falk Delgado2,3
  1. 1Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  2. 2Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
  3. 3Department of Neuroradiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
  4. 4Department of Medical Imaging, AZ Groeninge, Kortrijk, Belgium
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alberto Falk Delgado, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Ing 78/79, Akademiska sjukhuset, Uppsala 75185, Sweden; alberto.falk-delgado{at}surgsci.uu.se

Abstract

Background Two randomized trials have evaluated clipping and coiling in patients with ruptured aneurysms. Aggregated evidence for management of ruptured and unruptured aneurysms is missing.

Objective To conduct a meta-analysis evaluating clinical outcome after aneurysm treatment.

Methods PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for studies evaluating aneurysm treatment. The primary outcome measure was an independent clinical outcome (modified Rankin scale 0–2, Glasgow Outcome Scale 4–5, or equivalent). Secondary outcomes were poor outcome and mortality. ORs were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis with 95% CIs. Outcome heterogeneity was evaluated with Cochrane's Q test (significance level cut-off value at <0.10) and I2 (significance cut-off value >50%) with the Mantel–Haenszel method for dichotomous outcomes. A p value <0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

Results Searches yielded 18 802 articles. All titles were assessed, 403 abstracts were evaluated, and 183 full-text articles were read. One-hundred and fifty articles were qualitatively assessed and 85 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Patients treated with coiling (randomized controlled trials (RCTs)) had higher independent outcome at short-term follow-up (OR=0.67, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.79). Independent outcome was favored for coiling at intermediate and long-term follow-up (RCTs and observational studies combined—OR=0.80, 0.68 to 0.94 and OR=0.81, 0.71 to 0.93, respectively). Independent outcome and lower mortality was favored after coiling in unruptured aneurysms (database registry studies) at short-term follow-up (OR=0.34, 0.29 to 0.41 and OR=1.74, 1.52 to 1.98, respectively).

Conclusions This meta-analysis evaluating clinical outcome after coiling or clipping for intracranial aneurysms, indicates a higher independent outcome and lower mortality after coiling.

  • Aneurysm
  • Coil
  • Hemorrhage
  • Intervention

https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012292

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) accounts for approximately 5% of all stroke cases, often occurs in a younger population than for acute ischemic stroke, and may lead to significant morbidity.1 The most common cause of SAH is a ruptured intracranial aneurysm with an overall incidence of nine per 100 000 person-years, which increases with age.2 Prevalence of unruptured aneurysms on MRI screening has been estimated to be 1.8%.3 Fatality in SAH is high4 and the risk for rupture of an untreated intracranial aneurysm increases with size and location.5

    Treatment of intracranial aneurysms is based on their exclusion from the intracranial circulation to prevent bleeding, which can be achieved by surgical or endovascular techniques. Evidence suggests that coiling may be better than clipping for treatment of ruptured aneurysms for short-term and intermediate follow-up, but the generalizability has been questioned.6 A limited number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical clipping and endovascular coiling of ruptured intracranial aneurysms have been carried out. One RCT was conformed in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials criteria for a scientifically conducted randomized controlled trial (CONSORT)—the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT).7 Recently, 18-year follow-up data from ISAT8 were published, as well as 6-year follow-up data from the randomized Barrow Ruptured Aneurysm Trial (BRAT).9 No RCT has evaluated surgical clipping and endovascular coiling for unruptured aneurysms, and such a study is unlikely to occur since a long follow-up would be required to detect differences in outcome. Treatment of unruptured aneurysms relies heavily on the results from the International Study of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms (ISUIA) trial.5 An increasing number of non-randomized observational studies with short- and long-term follow-up have been published, with discordant results.

    Several meta-analyses comparing clipping and coiling have been published; however, only the Cochrane review published in 2005 analyzed results for the intention-to treat population.10 The meta-analysis published by Lanzino et al11 compared the outcome of ruptured cerebral aneurysms after clipping or coiling and was based on 1-year follow-up data from three RCTs with a study population of 2732 patients. A meta-analysis by Li et al12 compared the outcome of ruptured intracranial aneurysms after clipping or coiling; searches were made until 2012, and included 13 studies with 6555 patients with 1-year follow-up, and three studies including 1845 patients with long-term follow-up. Recently, Ruan et al13 conducted a meta-analysis of unruptured aneurysms comparing patient outcome after clipping or coiling. In their study, however, the searches identified only 366 articles, seven of which met the inclusion criteria, with four studies finally being evaluated showing no significant differences for clinical outcome.13 No systematic meta-analysis including the recently published studies presenting long-term clinical outcome, and no comprehensive meta-analysis including ruptured and unruptured aneurysms stratified for follow-up time and study design, has been published.

    This meta-analysis aimed to compare clinical endpoints (patient outcome and mortality) after surgical clipping or endovascular coiling of ruptured and unruptured cerebral aneurysms rather than surrogate endpoints such as occlusion patency, rebleeding, vasospasm, hydrocephalus, and re-treatment rates. Primary outcome measure was good clinical outcome (independent patient) and secondary outcome measures were poor clinical outcome (dependent patient) and mortality. As this study aimed to assess the data for both ruptured and unruptured aneurysm treatment, RCTs and non-RCTs were included in the analysis.

    Given the high prevalence of cerebral aneurysms and the severity of the disease they may cause, an updated comprehensive meta-analysis of the treatment of intracranial aneurysms is needed.14

    Methods

    Search strategy and selection criteria

    A systematic literature search was performed for studies of intracranial aneurysm treatment, surgical clipping, and endovascular coiling.

    One researcher performed the literature search (AlFD), in which data were retrieved from the following databases: PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials, from date of inception until 10 August 2015. The following search terms were used in combinations: coiling, clipping, intracranial, randomized, endovascular, long-term, aneurysm, treatment. In order to ensure a broad search we did not use Mesh terms. Published articles were considered for inclusion. The meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)15 and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE).16 Institutional review board approval was considered exempt since we included only previously published articles.

    Study selection and data extraction

    The following inclusion criteria were used:

    1. Randomized controlled trials;

    2. Non-randomized studies including database registries comparing clipping and coiling with at least 10% of the study population in each treatment arm;

    3. Ruptured or unruptured intracranial aneurysms;

    4. Independent outcome/poor outcome and/or mortality;

    5. Patients of any age;

    6. English, Spanish, and Swedish studies;

    7. Any study date;

    8. Intracranial aneurysm location in the anterior and/or posterior circulation.

    Exclusion criteria were:

    1. Other treatments than straightforward clipping or coiling—for example, clipping in combination with bypass surgery, stent-assisted coiling, or flow-diverter treatment. Single patients were excluded if their outcomes were reported separately;

    2. No presentation of outcomes separately for ruptured and unruptured aneurysms;

    3. Carotid-ophthalmic aneurysms, since they do not exclusively have an intracranial localization.

    Two researchers (AnfD and AIFD) independently assessed the retrieved articles and extracted the data according to a prespecified protocol into tables. Disagreements were solved by discussion. Primary outcome measure was an independent functional outcome defined as modified Rankin scale (mRS) 0–2,17 or Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) 4–5.18 Occasionally, if only mRS 0–1 or 0–3 was reported, this was used as definition of an independent outcome. In some studies other outcome measures were used, which were used if they were translatable into a good or poor outcome as defined above. For example, database registries present ‘discharge to home, which has been shown to correlate with mRS score 0–2 at discharge.19

    Secondary outcomes were poor clinical outcome and mortality. Poor outcome was defined as mRS 3–6, GOS 1–3, or equivalent. Quality of the studies and risk of bias was assessed based on components of study design and data presentation, and extracted into tables.

    Outcome data were prespecified to be stratified into three main groups according to follow-up time: short term (discharge–3 months), intermediate (>3 months–1 year), long-term (>1 year) for ruptured and unruptured aneurysms. Outcome data from RCTs, observational studies, and database registries were analyzed.

    Statistical analysis

    The meta-analysis was undertaken using Review Manager statistical software (RevMan, V.5.3. Copenhagen, Nordic Cochrane Centre, Cochrane Collaboration, 2014). RCTs were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle; observational studies were analyzed according to the post hoc analysis. Data from patients lost to follow-up in the RCTs were imputed with mRS=5 in order not to overestimate the treatment effect in studies with a higher percentage of drop-outs. Study data were pooled according to treatment allocation into surgical clipping or endovascular coiling. Outcome heterogeneity was evaluated with Cochrane’s Q test (significance level cut-off value at <0.10) and I2 (significance cut-off value >50%). The Mantel–Haenszel method was used for dichotomous outcomes with fixed or random effect (DerSimonian and Laird20) according to outcome heterogeneity. ORs with 95% CIs were calculated for all outcomes. An overall estimate for all study types was obtained only if there was no significant interaction among the different studies, defined by Higgins I2>50 and Cochrane's Q test <0.05. Assessment for publication bias was performed where appropriate (>10 studies in the same comparison) through visual inspection of funnel plots for asymmetry. Corrections for asymmetry were performed according to the trim and fill method.21 Prespecified sensitivity analyses for different outcome measurements were performed. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

    Results

    Searches identified 18 802 studies. 403 abstracts were assessed for eligibility and 183 articles underwent full-text evaluation. One hundred and fifty articles were included in the qualitative assessment. Major reasons for exclusion were the following: redundant cohorts presented in several publications, outcomes not stratified into ruptured and unruptured aneurysms, studies including only carotid-ophthalmic segment aneurysms, and outcomes not stratified for treatment. Eighty-five studies,5 ,7–9 ,22–98 met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis (see online supplementary figure S1). The tabulated studies included a total of 225 772 patients. The total study group of patients with ruptured aneurysms consisted of 117 495 individuals (2918 patients from RCTs, 11 303 patients from observational studies and 103 274 patients from database registry studies). The study population of unruptured aneurysms consisted of 108 277 patients (7487 from observational studies and 100 790 from database registry studies). Region of origin for included studies were Asia (n=25), Australia (n=3), Europe (n=30), USA and Canada (n=32). A full description of included studies is presented in table 1. Risk of bias and quality assessment, funding, and additional baseline parameters are presented in online supplementary table S1. Raw data tables of variables used in the meta-analyses are presented in online supplementary table 2 (ruptured aneurysms) and online supplementary table S3 (unruptured aneurysms).

    View this table:
    Table 1 Study characteristics
    View this table:
    Table 2

    Meta-analysis of ruptured aneurysm comparing coiling and clipping (short-term to long-term follow-up, OR for a functional outcome <1 favors coiling, OR for adverse outcomes >1 favors coiling)

    Ruptured aneurysms

    Short-term follow-up (discharge–3 months)

    Three RCTs, 21 observational studies and three database registry studies were included for short-term follow-up (table 2). No major differences in baseline characteristics between the RCTs were found, except for a higher proportion of aneurysms in the anterior circulation in ISAT. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were found in the observational studies. Calculated odds ratio (RCT) for an independent functional outcome (mRS 0–2, GOS 4–5, or equivalent) after endovascular coiling compared with surgical clipping was OR=0.67 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.79, OR <1 favors coiling). The proportion of patients with a good clinical outcome after aneurysm treatment was 61% in the coiling group and 52% in the clipping group with an absolute risk reduction of 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%). The corresponding analyses for observational and database registry studies did not reach significance (OR=1.12, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.52) and (OR=1.02, 0.87 to 1.18). Mortality did not differ between the two treatment modalities in RCTs (OR=1.09, CI 0.79 to 1.50) or observational studies (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.15), whereas mortality was significantly lower after surgical clipping in database registry studies (OR=0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.96, OR <1 favors clipping). When all study types were combined, the overall estimation of mortality in conjunction with aneurysm treatment favored clipping (OR=0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.72% (95% CI 1.31% to 2.4%) and a number needed to treat (NNT) of 59.

    Intermediate follow-up (>3 months–1 year)

    Four RCTs and 24 observational studies were included. Among observational studies, 72% of the studies had higher Hunt and Hess/World Federation of Neurological Societies/Fisher grade in the coiling group, whereas 12% of the studies had higher values in the clipping group, p=0.0001. The proportion of patients from the RCTs intention-to-treat population with an independent functional outcome was 74% after coiling and 66% after clipping (OR=0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81, OR <1 favors coiling). The proportion of patients with an independent functional outcome in the observational studies was 80% in the coiling group, and 78% in clipping group (OR=0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97). An interaction test showed no heterogeneity. An overall estimate for all study types favored coiling (OR=0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.94, figure 1) with an absolute risk reduction of 5% (95% CI 2.91% to 7.17%) and a NNT of 20 (95% CI 13.9 to 34.4). There were no significant differences in mortality between the two treatment modalities. A higher proportion of patients undergoing surgery had a poor outcome (28%) compared with coiling (24%), p=0.04. The overall risk estimate from the RCTs and the observational studies showed an increased risk for a poor outcome in the clipping group, OR=1.26 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.48, OR >1 worse outcome after clipping).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Meta-analysis of patients treated for ruptured intracranial aneurysms having an independent outcome comparing surgical clipping and endovascular coiling in the intermediate follow-up (3 months–1 year). Forrest plot demonstrates that coiling yields a higher proportion of patients with an independent outcome compared with clipping.

    Long-term follow-up (>1 year)

    Two RCTs and nine observational studies were included. Baseline characteristics did not differ between treatment groups (p=0.60). For long-term follow-up, a higher proportion of coiled patients had a good clinical outcome (42%) compared with the clipped patients (37%) in the RCTs intention-to-treat population (OR=0.80, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.94). OR for a good functional outcome in the observational studies was 0.84 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.10). Long-term overall estimate from RCTs and observational studies favored coiling (OR=0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.93, figure 2), with an absolute risk reduction of 4.4% (95% CI 1.30% to 7.51%). There was no difference in mortality between the two treatment arms.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Meta-analysis of patients treated for ruptured intracranial aneurysms having an independent outcome comparing surgical clipping and endovascular coiling in the long-term follow-up (>1 year). Forrest plot demonstrates that coiling yields a higher proportion of patients with an independent outcome compared with clipping.

    Sensitivity analysis

    Adjusting for imbalances in baseline characteristics led to a non-significant result for short-term mortality. Sensitivity analysis for intermediate follow-up (3 months–1 year) and long-term follow-up (>1 year) did not change the summary OR.

    Publication bias

    Asymmetric funnel plots were observed for short-term follow-up in observational studies for good and poor functional outcomes. Adjustments for this asymmetry did not change the pooled estimate.

    Unruptured aneurysms

    Short-term follow-up (discharge–3 months)

    Twelve observational studies and nine database registry studies were included (table 3). The proportion of patients in the observational studies with a good functional outcome was 97% and 96% after coiling and clipping, respectively, with an OR=0.77 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.07, OR <1 favors coiling). In database registry studies, the proportion of patients with a good functional outcome was 92% after coiling and 81% after clipping, OR=0.34 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.41, figure 3), with an absolute risk reduction after coiling of 11.8% (95% CI 11.37% to 12.23%). The calculated OR for mortality in observational studies was 0.88 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.62). Short-term mortality from database registry studies favored coiling 1.74 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.98) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.68% (95% CI 0.55% to 0.82%) and a NNT of 147 (95% CI 122 to 183).

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Meta-analysis of unruptured aneurysm comparing surgical clipping and endovascular coiling (short-term to long-term follow-up, OR for a functional outcome <1 favors coiling, OR for adverse outcomes >1 favors coiling)

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Meta-analysis of patients treated for unruptured intracranial aneurysms having a favourable outcome comparing surgical clipping and endovascular coiling in the short-term follow-up (<3 months). Forrest plot demonstrates in database registry studies that coiling yields a higher proportion of patients with an independent outcome compared with clipping.

    Intermediate follow-up (>3 months–1 year)

    Eleven observational studies were included. Pooled estimates were non-significant for all outcomes.

    Long-term follow-up (>1 year)

    Five observational studies were included. A good functional outcome was favored after clipping (OR=3.01, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.99, OR >1 favors clipping) with an absolute risk reduction of 2.63% (95% CI 0.46% to 4.80%). Long-term mortality after microsurgical clipping and endovascular coiling, respectively, was 0.45 (95% CI 0.09 to 2.33) based on six observational studies and 0.96 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.18) based on two database registry studies.

    Sensitivity analysis

    Sensitivity analysis for long-term follow-up for unruptured aneurysms changed results to non-significance 2.68 (95% CI 0.84 to 8.54) between coiling and clipping for a good/poor functional outcome.

    Publication bias assessment

    An asymmetric funnel plot was observed for short-term follow-up in the observational studies, with a skewness to the left. Adjustments for this skewness did not change the pooled estimate.

    Discussion

    This meta-analysis demonstrates a better outcome for patients treated with coiling (RCTs) for all follow-up periods, supported by the overall estimate from randomized and non-randomized studies (intermediate and long-term follow-up). At short-term follow-up, there were significantly higher mortality rates in the clipping group in the database registry studies (n=93 777). The long-term follow-up for a functional outcome in unruptured aneurysms favored clipping. However, three of five studies did not report baseline parameters, therefore these studies were excluded from the sensitivity analysis and the results were non-significant; thus we consider these results as less robust.

    In the meta-analysis by Lanzino et al,11 which included three RCTs, the authors demonstrated a favorable outcome for the 1-year follow-up for ruptured aneurysms, which is consistent with our study including RCTs and observational studies. The meta-analysis performed by Li et al12 assessed the 1-year outcome for ruptured aneurysms, but found no differences among observational studies for a favorable outcome. However, for long-term follow-up based on three studies they reported a favorable outcome for coiling. The meta-analysis by Ruan et al13 did not detect any difference in mortality or proportion of patients with a favorable outcome between coiling and clipping

    Aneurysmal subarachnoidal hemorrhage is treated to prevent rebleeding, with the obvious risk of further patient deterioration, and not to improve patient outcome. The outcome of the patient is multifactorial, depending on the severity of the initial bleed and also on the effectiveness and safety of the chosen treatment. Instead of choosing surrogate endpoints such as occlusion patency, rebleeding, vasospasm, and hydrocephalus, which do not necessarily reflect the clinical outcome, we chose to study clinical endpoints, such as independency, dependency, and mortality, since these are the factors most important for patients and their relatives.

    The main limitations of this pragmatic meta-analysis are due to the scarcity of well-conducted RCTs.

    In this meta-analysis we aimed to present results based on clinical practice and therefore included non-randomized studies and studies from database registries. There is, in general, a good correlation between randomized and non-randomized studies.99 It might be argued that if analyses with different levels of evidence reached the same conclusion this might be indicative of the generalizability of the results from the RCTs, despite methodological differences. In this study, data from different study types were pooled only when no significant interactions existed, as described previously.100

    Non-randomized studies are more likely to introduce a selection bias, in which elderly and poor-grade patients are more frequently allocated to endovascular treatment. Observational studies rarely report on eligible patients not included in the study, patients lost to follow-up, or those with primary crossover to another treatment.

    We used funnel-plots to explore the potential role of publication bias among the included studies. We detected an asymmetric funnel plot for observational studies in unruptured aneurysms for short-term follow-up, favoring coiling, with higher treatments effects in smaller studies. In addition, we observed a discrete asymmetric funnel plot for short-term follow-up in ruptured aneurysms, favoring clipping. This might be explained by publication bias, suggesting that studies with non-significant results favoring clipping and coiling in the ruptured and unruptured aneurysms were not published. We cannot out rule the possibility that studies on new coiling therapy are more likely to have been published than studies of conventional clipping. An explanation of the publication bias in this meta-analysis is the non-inclusion of unpublished data and the use of language restrictions.

    Another limitation is due to the rapid development of endovascular techniques. Today, many aneurysms, especially unruptured ones, are treated with stent-assisted coiling as well as with intrasaccular and extrasaccular flow diverters. As primary coiling, sometimes with balloon assistance, remain the mainstay for ruptured intracranial aneurysms in many institutions, it might be argued that the results from this study provide more up to date information about ruptured than unruptured aneurysms. The panorama, for both efficacy and safety, has probably changed with the development of new techniques and tools as compared with pure coiling.

    Aneurysm morphology and location, but also the clinical status and preferences of the patient, are keys in treatment decisions. Some aneurysms are regarded as difficult, and perhaps even impossible, to treat endovascularly, whereas others are feared to carry a high morbidity and mortality when chosen for open surgery. This incongruity, in that anatomical and patient-related variables make a certain treatment modality suitable, differs between coiling and clipping, making comparisons difficult. Based on results from RCTs it is unclear which patients would benefit more from clipping or coiling. True comparisons are difficult to achieve in observational studies, since treatment decisions depend on local circumstances and may vary throughout the study period. When these facts are taken into account, it can be seen that poor-grade patients were more often selected for coiling in the included studies.

    A strength of our study is the thorough search of all published data in the field, especially as, to the best of our knowledge, no large RCTs comparing the outcome from coiling versus clipping are planned.

    Patients receiving endovascular treatment for ruptured intracranial aneurysms have a higher proportion of good functional outcome than those undergoing clipping. There was no statistical heterogeneity for intermediate and long-term follow-up between randomized trials and observational studies and an overall estimate was obtained, making this generalizable to clinical practice, under the condition that it is technically feasible to coil the aneurysm. Data from large database registries show that patients treated with coiling have a higher proportion of good functional outcome after endovascular coiling and lower mortality, than those undergoing microsurgical clipping.

    In conclusion, this is the most comprehensive meta-analysis for treatment of ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms, including RCTs, observational studies, and database registry studies, stratified into short-, intermediate, and long-term outcome and shows better functional outcome after endovascular coiling than with surgical clipping.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Johnston SC,
      2. Selvin S,
      3. Gress DR
      . The burden, trends, and demographics of mortality from subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurology 1998;50:1413–18. doi:10.1212/WNL.50.5.1413
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. de Rooij NK,
      2. Linn FHH,
      3. van der Plas JA, et al
      . Incidence of subarachnoid haemorrhage: a systematic review with emphasis on region, age, gender and time trends. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 2007;78:1365–72. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2007.117655
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      1. Vernooij MW,
      2. Ikram MA,
      3. Tanghe HL, et al
      . Incidental findings on brain MRI in the general population. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1821–8. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa070972
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Longstreth WT Jr.,
      2. Nelson LM,
      3. Koepsell TD, et al
      . Clinical course of spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage: a population-based study in King County, Washington. Neurology 1993;43:712–18. doi:10.1212/WNL.43.4.712
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Wiebers DO,
      2. Whisnant JP,
      3. Huston J III., et al
      . Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: natural history, clinical outcome, and risks of surgical and endovascular treatment. Lancet 2003;362:103–10. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13860-3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Kunz R,
      2. Burnand B
      . The GRADE system: an international approach to standardize the graduation of evidence and recommendations in guidelines. Internist (Berl) 2008:49:673–80. doi:10.1007/s00108-008-2141-9
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Molyneux A,
      2. Kerr R,
      3. Stratton I, et al
      . International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002;360:1267–74. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11314-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. Molyneux AJ,
      2. Birks J,
      3. Clarke A, et al
      . The durability of endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping of ruptured cerebral aneurysms: 18 year follow-up of the UK cohort of the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT). Lancet 2015;385:691–7. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60975-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Spetzler RF,
      2. McDougall CG,
      3. Zabramski JM, et al
      . The Barrow Ruptured Aneurysm Trial: 6-year results. J Neurosurg 2015;23:609–17. doi:10.3171/2014.9.JNS141749
      OpenUrl
    10. ↵
      1. Van der Schaaf I,
      2. Algra A,
      3. Wermer M, et al
      . Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;(4):CD003085. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003085.pub2
    11. ↵
      1. Lanzino G,
      2. Murad MH,
      3. d'Urso PI, et al
      . Coil embolization versus clipping for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a meta-analysis of prospective controlled published studies. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1764–8. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3515
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    12. ↵
      1. Li H,
      2. Pan R,
      3. Wang H, et al
      . Clipping versus coiling for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke 2013;44:29–37. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.663559
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      1. Ruan C,
      2. Long H,
      3. Sun H, et al
      . Endovascular coiling vs. surgical clipping for unruptured intracranial aneurysm: a meta-analysis. Br J Neurosurg 2015;29:485–92. doi:10.3109/02688697.2015.1023771
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Raymond J,
      2. Nolet S
      . International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial II (ISAT II). (cited 20 August 2015). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01668563?term=International+Subarachnoid+Aneurysm+Trial+II&rank=1
    15. ↵
      1. Moher D,
      2. Liberati A,
      3. Tetzlaff J, et al
      ., The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Stroup DF,
      2. Berlin JA,
      3. Morton SC, et al
      . Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008–12. doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. van Swieten JC,
      2. Koudstaal PJ,
      3. Visser MC, et al
      . Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988;19:604–7. doi:10.1161/01.STR.19.5.604
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    18. ↵
      1. Jennett B,
      2. Bond M
      . Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. Lancet 1975;1:480–4. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(75)92830-5
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      1. Johnston SC,
      2. Wilson CB,
      3. Halbach VV, et al
      . Endovascular and surgical treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms: comparison of risks. Ann Neurol 2000;48:11–19. doi:10.1002/1531-8249(200007)48:1<11::AID-ANA4>3.3.CO;2-M
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      1. DerSimonian R,
      2. Laird N
      . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177–88. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      1. Duval S,
      2. Tweedie R
      . Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000;56:455–63. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      1. Molyneux AJ,
      2. Kerr RSC,
      3. Yu L-M, et al
      . International subarachnoid aneurysm trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised comparison of effects on survival, dependency, seizures, rebleeding, subgroups, and aneurysm occlusion. Lancet 2005;366:809–17. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67214-5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Lot G,
      2. Houdart E,
      3. Cophignon J, et al
      . Combined management of intracranial aneurysms by surgical and endovascular treatment. Modalities and results from a series of 395 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1999;141:557–62. doi:10.1007/s007010050343
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Mortimer AM,
      2. Bradford C,
      3. Steinfort B, et al
      . Short term outcomes following clipping and coiling of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: does some of the benefit of coiling stem [arise] from less procedural impact on deranged physiology at presentation? J NeuroInterv Surg 2016:8:145–51. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011533
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      1. Phillips TJ,
      2. Dowling RJ,
      3. Yan B, et al
      . Does treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms within 24 hours improve clinical outcome? Stroke 2011;42:1936–45. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.602888
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      1. Richling B,
      2. Bavinzski G,
      3. Gross C, et al
      . Early clinical outcome of patients with ruptured cerebral aneurysms treated by endovascular (GDC) or microsurgical techniques. A single center experience. Interv Neuroradiol 1995;1:19–27.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    27. ↵
      1. Raftopoulos C,
      2. Goffette P,
      3. Vaz G, et al
      . Surgical clipping may lead to better results than coil embolization: results from a series of 101 consecutive unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurgery 2003;52:1280–7; discussion 1287–90. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000064568.71648.EC
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. O'Kelly CJ,
      2. Kulkarni AV,
      3. Austin PC, et al
      . The impact of therapeutic modality on outcomes following repair of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: an administrative data analysis. Clinical article. J Neurosurg 2010;113:795–801. doi:10.3171/2009.9.JNS081645
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. ↵
      1. Li ZQ,
      2. Wang QH,
      3. Chen G, et al
      . Outcomes of endovascular coiling versus surgical clipping in the treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms. J Int Med Res 2012;40:2145–51. doi:10.1177/030006051204000612
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    30. ↵
      1. Liang J,
      2. Bao Y,
      3. Zhang H, et al
      . The clinical features and treatment of pediatric intracranial aneurysm. Childs Nerv Syst 2009;25:317–24. doi:10.1007/s00381-008-0725-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      1. Yu SCH,
      2. Wong GKC,
      3. Wong JKT, et al
      . Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: significant benefits in clinical outcome and reduced consumption of hospital resources in Hong Kong Chinese patients. Hong Kong Med J 2007;13:271–8.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    32. ↵
      1. Yang M,
      2. Wang S,
      3. Zhao Y, et al
      . Management of intracranial aneurysm in children: clipped and coiled. Childs Nerv Syst 2008;24:1005–12. doi:10.1007/s00381-008-0618-4
      OpenUrlPubMed
    33. ↵
      1. Zhang QR,
      2. Zhang X,
      3. Wu Q, et al
      . The impact of microsurgical clipping and endovascular coiling on the outcome of cerebral aneurysms in patients over 60 years of age. J Clin Neurosci 2012;19:1115–18. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2011.11.017
      OpenUrlPubMed
    34. ↵
      1. Niskanen M,
      2. Koivisto T,
      3. Rinne J, et al
      . Complications and postoperative care in patients undergoing treatment for unruptured intracranial aneurysms. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2005;17:100–5. doi:10.1097/01.ana.0000163202.33236.mL
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Niskanen M,
      2. Koivisto T,
      3. Ronkainen A, et al
      . Resource use after subarachnoid hemorrhage: comparison between endovascular and surgical treatment. Neurosurgery 2004;54:1081–6; discussion 1086–8. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000119350.80122.43
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    36. ↵
      1. Vanninen R,
      2. Koivisto T,
      3. Saari T, et al
      . Ruptured intracranial aneurysms: acute endovascular treatment with electrolytically detachable coils--a prospective randomized study. Radiology 1999;211:325–36. doi:10.1148/radiology.211.2.r99ap06325
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      1. Park JH,
      2. Kim YI,
      3. Lim YC
      . Clinical outcomes of treatment for intracranial aneurysm in elderly patients. J Cerebrovasc Endovasc Neurosurg 2014;16:193. doi:10.7461/jcen.2014.16.3.193
      OpenUrlPubMed
    38. ↵
      1. Park J,
      2. Woo H,
      3. Kang D-H, et al
      . Critical age affecting 1-year functional outcome in elderly patients aged ≥70 years with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2014;156:1655–61. doi:10.1007/s00701-014-2133-6
      OpenUrlPubMed
    39. ↵
      1. Pyysalo L,
      2. Luostarinen T,
      3. Keski-Nisula L, et al
      . Long-term excess mortality of patients with treated and untreated unruptured intracranial aneurysms. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 2013;84:888–92. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2012-303073
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    40. ↵
      1. Lasjaunias P,
      2. Wuppalapati S,
      3. Alvarez H, et al
      . Intracranial aneurysms in children aged under 15 years: review of 59 consecutive children with 75 aneurysms. Childs Nerv Syst 2005;21:437–50. doi:10.1007/s00381-004-1125-x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    41. ↵
      1. Proust F,
      2. Debono B,
      3. Hannequin D, et al
      . Treatment of anterior communicating artery aneurysms: complementary aspects of microsurgical and endovascular procedures. J Neurosurg 2003;99:3–14. doi:10.3171/jns.2003.99.1.0003
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    42. ↵
      1. Brunken M,
      2. Kehler U,
      3. Fiehler J, et al
      . Coiling vs. clipping: hospital stay and procedure time in intracranial aneurysm treatment. Rofo 2009;181:989–95. doi:10.1055/s-0028-1109344
      OpenUrlPubMed
    43. ↵
      1. Dammann P,
      2. Schoemberg T,
      3. Müller O, et al
      . Outcome for unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysm treatment: surgical and endovascular approach in a single center. Neurosurg Rev 2014;37:643–51. doi:10.1007/s10143-014-0563-5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. Güresir E,
      2. Schuss P,
      3. Berkefeld J, et al
      . Treatment results for complex middle cerebral artery aneurysms. A prospective single-center series. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2011;153:1247–52. doi:10.1007/s00701-011-1008-3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    45. ↵
      1. Kunz M,
      2. Bakhshai Y,
      3. Zausinger S, et al
      . Interdisciplinary treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: impact of intraprocedural rupture and ischemia in 563 aneurysms. J Neurol 2013;260:1304–13. doi:10.1007/s00415-012-6795-9
      OpenUrlPubMed
    46. ↵
      1. Seifert V,
      2. Gerlach R,
      3. Raabe A, et al
      . The interdisciplinary treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Dtsch Ärztebl Int 2008;105:449–56.
      OpenUrl
    47. ↵
      1. Steiger HJ,
      2. Medele R,
      3. Brückmann H, et al
      . Interdisciplinary management results in 100 patients with ruptured and unruptured posterior circulation aneurysms. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1999;141:359–66; discussion 366–7. doi:10.1007/s007010050311
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    48. ↵
      1. Walendy V,
      2. Strauss C,
      3. Rachinger J, et al
      . Treatment of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage in Germany: a nationwide analysis of the years 2005-2009. Neuroepidemiology 2014;42:90–7. doi:10.1159/000355843
      OpenUrlPubMed
    49. ↵
      1. Fukui K,
      2. Suzuki O,
      3. Ito S, et al
      . Comparison of endovascular and surgical treatment for ruptured cerebral aneurysms with respect to short and long-term outcome. Interv Neuroradiol 2004;10:129–34.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    50. ↵
      1. Hamada J,
      2. Morioka M,
      3. Yano S, et al
      . Incidence and early prognosis of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage in Kumamoto Prefecture, Japan. Neurosurgery 2004;54:31–7; discussion 37-8 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000097196.55204.0B
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    51. ↵
      1. Iwamuro Y,
      2. Nakahara I,
      3. Higashi T, et al
      . Result of neck clipping and coil embolization as a treatment for unruptured aneurysm. Interv Neuroradiol 2007;13(Suppl 1):151–6.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    52. ↵
      1. Khandelwal P,
      2. Kato Y,
      3. Sano H, et al
      . Treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: our approach. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2005;48:325–9. doi:10.1055/s-2005-915633
      OpenUrlPubMed
    53. ↵
      1. Suzuki S,
      2. Kurata A,
      3. Yamada M, et al
      . Outcomes analysis of ruptured distal anterior cerebral artery aneurysms treated by endosaccular embolization and surgical clipping. Interv Neuroradiol 2011;17:49–57.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    54. ↵
      1. Taha MM,
      2. Nakahara I,
      3. Higashi T, et al
      . Endovascular embolization vs surgical clipping in treatment of cerebral aneurysms: morbidity and mortality with short-term outcome. Surg Neurol 2006;66:277–84; discussion 284. doi:10.1016/j.surneu.2005.12.031
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    55. ↵
      1. Taki W,
      2. Sakai N,
      3. Suzuki H
      , PRESAT Group. Determinants of poor outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage when both clipping and coiling are available: Prospective Registry of Subarachnoid Aneurysms Treatment (PRESAT) in Japan. World Neurosurg 2011;76:437–45. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2011.04.026
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    56. ↵
      1. Tenjin H,
      2. Takadou M,
      3. Ogawa T, et al
      . Treatment selection for ruptured aneurysm and outcomes: clipping or coil embolization. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2011;51:23–9. doi:10.2176/nmc.51.23
      OpenUrlPubMed
    57. ↵
      1. Tokimura H,
      2. Yamahata H,
      3. Kamezawa T, et al
      . Clinical presentation and treatment of distal posterior inferior cerebellar artery aneurysms. Neurosurg Rev 2011;34:57–67. doi:10.1007/s10143-010-0296-z
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    58. ↵
      1. Jang EW,
      2. Jung JY,
      3. Hong CK, et al
      . Benefits of surgical treatment for unruptured intracranial aneurysms in elderly patients. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2011;49:20–5. doi:10.3340/jkns.2011.49.1.20
      OpenUrlPubMed
    59. ↵
      1. Kim BM,
      2. Kim DI,
      3. Shin YS, et al
      . Clinical outcome and ischemic complication after treatment of anterior choroidal artery aneurysm: comparison between surgical clipping and endovascular coiling. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:286–90. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0806
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    60. ↵
      1. Song J,
      2. Kim B-S,
      3. Shin YS
      . Treatment outcomes of unruptured intracranial aneurysm; experience of 1231 consecutive aneurysms. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2015;157:1303–10; discussion 1311. doi:10.1007/s00701-015-2460-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    61. ↵
      1. Premananda RM,
      2. Ramesh N,
      3. Hillol KP
      . Functional outcome of microsurgical clipping compared to endovascular coiling. Med J Malaysia 2012;67:585–90.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    62. ↵
      1. Brilstra EH,
      2. Rinkel GJE,
      3. van der Graaf Y, et al
      . Quality of life after treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms by neurosurgical clipping or by embolisation with coils. Cerebrovasc Dis 2004;17:44–52. doi:10.1159/000073897
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    63. ↵
      1. Klompenhouwer EG,
      2. Dings JTA,
      3. van Oostenbrugge RJ, et al
      . Single-center experience of surgical and endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:570–5. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2326
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    64. ↵
      1. Lusseveld E,
      2. Brilstra EH,
      3. Nijssen PCG, et al
      . Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping in patients with a ruptured basilar tip aneurysm. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 2002;73:591–3. doi:10.1136/jnnp.73.5.591
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    65. ↵
      1. Carvi y Nievas MN
      . The influence of configuration and location of ruptured distal cerebral anterior artery aneurysms on their treatment modality and results: analysis of our casuistry and literature review. Neurol Res 2010;32:73–81. doi:10.1179/016164110X12556180205951
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    66. ↵
      1. Nieuwkamp DJ
      . Subarachnoid haemorrhage in patients ≥75 years: clinical course, treatment and outcome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 2006;77:933–7. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2005.084350
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    67. ↵
      1. Zubair Tahir M,
      2. Enam SA,
      3. Pervez Ali R, et al
      . Cost-effectiveness of clipping vs coiling of intracranial aneurysms after subarachnoid hemorrhage in a developing country—a prospective study. Surg Neurol 2009;72:355–60; discussion 360-1. doi:10.1016/j.surneu.2008.11.003
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    68. ↵
      1. Birski M,
      2. Wałęsa C,
      3. Gaca W, et al
      . Clipping versus coiling for intracranial aneurysms. Neurol Neurochir Pol 2014;48:122–9. doi:10.1016/j.pjnns.2014.03.002
      OpenUrlPubMed
    69. ↵
      1. Koh K,
      2. Ng Z,
      3. Low S, et al
      . Management of ruptured intracranial aneurysms in the post-ISAT era: outcome of surgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in a Singapore tertiary institution. Singapore Med J 2013;54:332–8. doi:10.11622/smedj.2013127
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    70. ↵
      1. Ronne-Engström E,
      2. Enblad P,
      3. Gál G, et al
      . Patients with spontaneous subarachnoid haemorrhage—presentation of a 10-year hospital series. Br J Neurosurg 2009;23:499–506. doi:10.1080/02688690902874901
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    71. ↵
      1. Liu H-M,
      2. Wong H-F,
      3. Lee K-W, et al
      . Taiwan aneurysm registry: multivariate analysis of two-month, one-year, and two-year outcomes after endovascular and microsurgical treatment of ruptured aneurysms. Interv Neuroradiol 2013;19:35–42.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    72. ↵
      1. Goddard AJP
      . Does the method of treatment of acutely ruptured intracranial aneurysms influence the incidence and duration of cerebral vasospasm and clinical outcome? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 2004;75:868–72. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2003.033068
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    73. ↵
      1. Alawi A,
      2. Edgell RC,
      3. Elbabaa SK, et al
      . Treatment of cerebral aneurysms in children: analysis of the Kids' Inpatient Database. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2014;14:23–30. doi:10.3171/2014.4.PEDS13464
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    74. ↵
      1. Bhatia S,
      2. Sekula RF,
      3. Quigley MR, et al
      . Role of calcification in the outcomes of treated, unruptured, intracerebral aneurysms. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2011;153:905–11. doi:10.1007/s00701-010-0846-8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    75. ↵
      1. Barker FG,
      2. Amin-Hanjani S,
      3. Butler WE, et al
      . Age-dependent differences in short-term outcome after surgical or endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms in the United States, 1996–2000. Neurosurgery 2004;54:18–28; discussion 28–30. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000097195.48840.C4
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    76. ↵
      1. Brinjikji W,
      2. Rabinstein AA,
      3. Nasr DM, et al
      . Better outcomes with treatment by coiling relative to clipping of unruptured intracranial aneurysms in the United States, 2001-2008. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:1071–5. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2453
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    77. ↵
      1. Brinjikji W,
      2. Lanzino G,
      3. Rabinstein AA, et al
      . Age-related trends in the treatment and outcomes of ruptured cerebral aneurysms: a study of the nationwide inpatient sample 2001-2009. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1022–7. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3321
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    78. ↵
      1. Chalouhi N,
      2. Penn DL,
      3. Tjoumakaris S, et al
      . Treatment of small ruptured intracranial aneurysms: comparison of surgical and endovascular options. J Am Heart Assoc 2012;1:e002865–e002865. doi:10.1161/JAHA.112.002865
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    79. ↵
      1. Diaz OM,
      2. Rangel-Castilla L,
      3. Barber S, et al
      . Middle cerebral artery aneurysms: a single-center series comparing endovascular and surgical treatment. World Neurosurg 2014;81:322–9. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2012.12.011
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    80. ↵
      1. Gonda DD,
      2. Khalessi AA,
      3. McCutcheon BA, et al
      . Long-term follow-up of unruptured intracranial aneurysms repaired in California: clinical article. J Neurosurg 2014;120:1349–57. doi:10.3171/2014.3.JNS131159
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    81. ↵
      1. Higashida RT,
      2. Lahue BJ,
      3. Torbey MT, et al
      . Treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a nationwide assessment of effectiveness. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:146–51.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    82. ↵
      1. Hoh BL,
      2. Topcuoglu MA,
      3. Singhal AB, et al
      . Effect of clipping, craniotomy, or intravascular coiling on cerebral vasospasm and patient outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurosurgery 2004;55:779–86; discussion 786–9. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000137628.51839.D5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    83. ↵
      1. Hui FK,
      2. Schuette AJ,
      3. Moskowitz SI, et al
      . Microsurgical and endovascular management of pericallosal aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg 2011;3:319–23. doi:10.1136/jnis.2011.004770
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    84. ↵
      1. Jalbert JJ,
      2. Isaacs AJ,
      3. Kamel H, et al
      . Clipping and coiling of unruptured intracranial aneurysms among Medicare beneficiaries, 2000 to 2010. Stroke 2015;6:2452–7. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.009777
      OpenUrl
    85. ↵
      1. Johnston SC,
      2. Dudley RA,
      3. Gress DR, et al
      . Surgical and endovascular treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms at university hospitals. Neurology 1999;52:1799–805. doi:10.1212/WNL.52.9.1799
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    86. ↵
      1. Johnston SC,
      2. Zhao S,
      3. Dudley RA, et al
      . Treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms in California. Stroke J Cereb Circ 2001;32:597–605. doi:10.1161/01.STR.32.3.597
      OpenUrl
    87. ↵
      1. Lad SP,
      2. Babu R,
      3. Rhee MS, et al
      . Long-term economic impact of coiling vs clipping for unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurgery 2013;72:1000–11; discussion 1011–3. doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000429284.91142.56
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    88. ↵
      1. McDonald JS,
      2. McDonald RJ,
      3. Fan J, et al
      . Comparative effectiveness of unruptured cerebral aneurysm therapies: propensity score analysis of clipping versus coiling. Stroke J Cereb Circ 2013;44:988–94. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000196
      OpenUrl
    89. ↵
      1. McDougall CG,
      2. Spetzler RF,
      3. Zabramski JM, et al
      . The Barrow Ruptured Aneurysm Trial. J Neurosurg 2012;116:135–44. doi:10.3171/2011.8.JNS101767
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    90. ↵
      1. Natarajan SK,
      2. Sekhar LN,
      3. Ghodke B, et al
      . Outcomes of ruptured intracranial aneurysms treated by microsurgical clipping and endovascular coiling in a high-volume center. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:753–9. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0895
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    91. ↵
      1. Rabinstein AA,
      2. Pichelmann MA,
      3. Friedman JA, et al
      . Symptomatic vasospasm and outcomes following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a comparison between surgical repair and endovascular coil occlusion. J Neurosurg 2003;98:319–25. doi:10.3171/jns.2003.98.2.0319
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    92. ↵
      1. Sekhar LN,
      2. Tariq F,
      3. Morton RP, et al
      . Basilar tip aneurysms: a microsurgical and endovascular contemporary series of 100 patients. Neurosurgery 2013;72:284–98; discussion 298-9. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182797952
      OpenUrlPubMed
    93. ↵
      1. Spetzler RF,
      2. McDougall CG,
      3. Albuquerque FC, et al
      . The Barrow Ruptured Aneurysm Trial: 3-year results: clinical article. J Neurosurg 2013;119:146–57. doi:10.3171/2013.3.JNS12683
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    94. ↵
      1. Koivisto T,
      2. Vanninen R,
      3. Hurskainen H, et al
      . Outcomes of early endovascular versus surgical treatment of ruptured cerebral aneurysms. A prospective randomized study. Stroke J Cereb Circ 2000;31:2369–77. doi:10.1161/01.STR.31.10.2369
      OpenUrl
    95. ↵
      1. Stiefel MF,
      2. Heuer GG,
      3. Basil AK, et al
      . Endovascular and surgical treatment of ruptured cerebral aneurysms in pediatric patients. Neurosurgery 2008;63:859–65; discussion 865-6. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000327573.42267.CC
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    96. ↵
      1. Varelas P,
      2. Helms A,
      3. Sinson G, et al
      . Clipping or coiling of ruptured cerebral aneurysms and shunt-dependent hydrocephalus. Neurocrit Care 2006;4: 223–8. doi:10.1385/NCC:4:3:223
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    97. ↵
      1. Zacharia BE,
      2. Bruce SS,
      3. Carpenter AM, et al
      . Variability in outcome after elective cerebral aneurysm repair in high-volume academic medical centers. Stroke 2014;45:1447–52. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.004412
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    98. ↵
      1. Zaidat OO,
      2. Ionita CC,
      3. Hussain SI, et al
      . Impact of ruptured cerebral aneurysm coiling and clipping on the incidence of cerebral vasospasm and clinical outcome. J Neuroimaging 2009;19:144–9. doi:10.1111/j.1552-6569.2008.00285.x
      OpenUrlPubMed
    99. ↵
      1. Ioannidis JPA
      . Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 2001;286:821. doi:10.1001/jama.286.7.821
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    100. ↵
      1. Sedgwick P
      . Meta-analyses: heterogeneity and subgroup analysis. BMJ 2013;346:f4040. doi:10.1136/bmj.f4040
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
      1. Liao CC,
      2. Huang YH,
      3. Fang PH, et al
      . Surgical and endovascular treatment for ruptured anterior circulation cerebral aneurysms: a comparison of outcomes–a single centre study from Taiwan. Int J Surg 2013;11:998–1001.
      OpenUrlPubMed
      1. Kim JE,
      2. Lim DJ,
      3. Hong CK, et al
      . Treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms in South Korea in 2006 : a nationwide multicenter survey from the korean society of cerebrovascular surgery. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2010;4:112–8.
      OpenUrl
      1. Groden C,
      2. Kremer C,
      3. Regelsberger J, et al
      . Comparison of operative and endovascular treatment of anterior circulation aneurysms in patients in poor grades. Neuroradiology. 2001;43:778–83.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Helland CA,
      2. Kråkenes J,
      3. Moen G, et al
      . A population-based study of neurosurgical and endovascular treatment of ruptured, intracranial aneurysms in a small neurosurgical unit. Neurosurgery 2006;59:1168–75.
      OpenUrlPubMed
      1. Yu SC,
      2. Wong GK,
      3. Wong JK, et al
      . Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: significant benefits in clinical outcome and reduced consumption of hospital resources in Hong Kong Chinese patients. Hong Kong Med J 2007;13:271–8.
      OpenUrlPubMed

    Footnotes

    • Contributors AlFD and AnFD contributed equally to this study. AlFD and AnFD planned the work and were responsible for data collection, analysis and interpretation, and writing of the manuscript. TA interpreted the data and critically revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version and agreed on the integrity of the work.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.