Multidisciplinary consensus on assessment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: proposal of an international research group.

Etminan, Nima; Beseoglu, Kerim; Barrow, Daniel L; Bederson, Joshua; Brown, Robert D; Connolly, E Sander; Derdeyn, Colin P; Hänggi, Daniel; Hasan, David; Juvela, Seppo; Kasuya, Hidetoshi; Kirkpatrick, Peter J; Knuckey, Neville; Koivisto, Timo; Lanzino, Giuseppe; Lawton, Michael T; LeRoux, Peter; McDougall, Cameron G; Mee, Edward; Mocco, J; ... (2014). Multidisciplinary consensus on assessment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: proposal of an international research group. Stroke, 45(5), pp. 1523-1530. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.004519

Text 1523.full.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (455kB) | Request a copy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To address the increasing need to counsel patients about treatment indications for unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA), we endeavored to develop a consensus on assessment of UIAs among a group of specialists from diverse fields involved in research and treatment of UIAs.

METHODS

After composition of the research group, a Delphi consensus was initiated to identify and rate all features, which may be relevant to assess UIAs and their treatment by using ranking scales and analysis of inter-rater agreement (IRA) for each factor. IRA was categorized as very high, high, moderate, or low.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 39 specialists from 4 specialties agreed (high or very high IRAs) on the following key factors for or against UIA treatment decisions: (1) patient age, life expectancy, and comorbid diseases; (2) previous subarachnoid hemorrhage from a different aneurysm, family history for UIA or subarachnoid hemorrhage, nicotine use; (3) UIA size, location, and lobulation; (4) UIA growth or de novo formation on serial imaging; (5) clinical symptoms (cranial nerve deficit, mass effect, and thromboembolic events from UIAs); and (6) risk factors for UIA treatment (patient age and life expectancy, UIA size, and estimated risk of treatment). However, IRAs for features rated with low relevance were also generally low, which underlined the existing controversy about the natural history of UIAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight that neurovascular specialists currently consider many features as important when evaluating UIAs but also highlight that the appreciation of natural history of UIAs remains uncertain, even within a group of highly informed individuals.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

1 since deposited on 17 Mar 2015
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item