New Devices Designed to Improve the Long-Term Results of Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms. A Proposition for a Randomized Clinical Trial to Assess their Safety and Efficacy

Abstract

Endovascular coiling can improve the outcome of patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms, but angiographic recurrences are frequent compared to surgical clipping. New coils or devices have been introduced to improve long-term results of endovascular treatment but none have been the object of a valid clinical trial. We have proposed a multicentric randomized double-blind study comparing radioactive and standard coil occlusion of aneurysms. The purpose of this article is to review issues that are specific to the design of clinical trials to assess embolic agents that could improve the long-term efficacy of endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. The proposed trial is a randomized, multi-center, prospective, controlled trial comparing the new generation coils to standard platinum coils. Blinding, if at all possible, is preferable to minimize bias, at least for follow-up angiographic studies that should cover a period of 18 months. All patients with an intracranial aneurysm eligible for endovascular treatment would be proposed to participate. The study would enrol approximately 500 patients equally divided between the two groups, recruited within two years, to demonstrate a decrease in the recurrence rate, the primary outcome measure, from 20% to 10%. Secondary outcome measures should assure that complications, initial clinical and angiographic results remain unchanged. Independent data safety and monitoring committees are crucial to the credibility of trials and to ensure scientific rigor and objectivity. The scientific demonstration of an improved long-term efficacy, without significant compromise regarding safety, is mandatory before considering the widespread use of a new embolic device for the endovascular treatment of aneurysms.

Figure 1

Type of recurrences. A) Initial results: complete obliteration;B) A first follow-up angiogram shows a minimal or 'minor' recurrence;C) A second follow-up angiogram demonstrate a recurrence of a size sufficient to consider retreatment; we have labelled this type a 'major' recurrence.