Flow Diversion in the Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms: A Pragmatic Randomized Care Trial

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Arrese I,
   2. Sarabia R,
   3. Pintado R, et al

   . Flow-diverter devices for intracranial aneurysms: systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurgery 2013;73:193–99; discussion 199–200 doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000430297.17961.f1 pmid:23624409

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Becske T,
   2. Kallmes DF,
   3. Saatci I, et al

   . Pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms: results from a multicenter clinical trial. Radiology 2013;267:858–68 doi:10.1148/radiol.13120099 pmid:23418004

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Brinjikji W,
   2. Murad MH,
   3. Lanzino G, et al

   . Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow diverters: a meta-analysis. Stroke 2013;44:442–47 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.678151 pmid:23321438

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Wakhloo AK,
   2. Schellhammer F,
   3. de Vries J, et al

   . Self-expanding and balloon-expandable stents in the treatment of carotid aneurysms: an experimental study in a canine model. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:493–502 pmid:8197946

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Darsaut TE,
   2. Bing F,
   3. Salazkin I, et al

   . Flow diverters can occlude aneurysms and preserve arterial branches: a new experimental model. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:2004–09 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3075 pmid:22555582

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. Kulcsar Z,
   2. Houdart E,
   3. Bonafe A, et al

   . Intra-aneurysmal thrombosis as a possible cause of delayed aneurysm rupture after flow-diversion treatment. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:20–25 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2370 pmid:21071538

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. Park MS,
   2. Albuquerque FC,
   3. Nanaszko M, et al

   . Critical assessment of complications associated with use of the Pipeline Embolization Device. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:652–59 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011265 pmid:24968879

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Houdart E

   . Meta-analysis as a symptom: the example of flow diverters. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2020;41:E51 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6594 pmid:32467188

   FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. Houdart E

   . Commentary about a 20th meta-analysis. J Neurointerv Surg 2021;13:e19 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-017234 pmid:33514610

   FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    1. Darsaut TE,
    2. Gentric JC,
    3. McDougall CM, et al

    . Uncertainty and agreement regarding the role of flow diversion in the management of difficult aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:930–36 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4201 pmid:25593206

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Liu JM,
    2. Zhou Y,
    3. Li Y, et al

    . Parent Artery Reconstruction for Large or Giant Cerebral Aneurysms Using the Tubridge Flow Diverter: a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial (PARAT). AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:807–16 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5619 pmid:29599173

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Kiselev R,
    2. Orlov K,
    3. Dubovoy A, et al

    . Flow diversion versus parent artery occlusion with bypass in the treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms: immediate and short-term outcomes of the randomized trial. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2018;172:183–89 doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.06.042 pmid:30053620

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Darsaut TE,
    3. Altman DG

    . Pragmatic trials can be designed as optimal medical care: principles and methods of care trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:1150–56 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.010 pmid:25042688

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Darsaut TE,
    3. Guilbert F, et al

    . Flow diversion in aneurysms trial: the design of the FIAT study. Interv Neuroradiol 2011;17:147–53 doi:10.1177/159101991101700202 pmid:21696651

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Gentric JC,
    3. Darsaut TE, et al

    . Flow diversion in the treatment of aneurysms: a randomized care trial and registry. J Neurosurg 2017;127:454–62 doi:10.3171/2016.4.JNS152662 pmid:27813466

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Zelen M

    . Randomized consent designs for clinical trials: an update. Stat Med 1990;9:645–66 doi:10.1002/sim.4780090611 pmid:2218168

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Darsaut TE,
    3. Roy DJ

    . Recruitment in clinical trials: the use of Zelen’s prerandomization in recent neurovascular studies. World Neurosurg 2017;98:403–10 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.11.052 pmid:27876665

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Bruno A,
    2. Shah N,
    3. Lin C, et al

    . Improving modified Rankin Scale assessment with a simplified questionnaire. Stroke 2010;41:1048–50 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.571562 pmid:20224060

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    1. Altman DG,
    2. Whitehead J,
    3. Parmar MK, et al

    . Randomised consent designs in cancer clinical trials. Eur J Cancer 1995;31A:1934–44 doi:10.1016/0959-8049(95)00470-X pmid:8562145

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Benomar A,
    2. Farzin B,
    3. Volders D, et al

    . Angiographic results of surgical or endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and inter-observer reliability study. Neuroradiology 2021;63:1511–19 doi:10.1007/s00234-021-02676-0 pmid:33625550

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Benomar A,
    2. Farzin B,
    3. Gevry G, et al

    . Noninvasive angiographic results of clipped or coiled intracranial aneurysms: an inter- and intraobserver reliability study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:1615–20 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7236 pmid:34326106

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    1. Darsaut TE,
    2. Raymond J

    . Ethical care requires pragmatic care research to guide medical practice under uncertainty. Trials 2021;22:143 doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05084-0 pmid:33588946

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Fahed R,
    3. Roy D, et al

    . The 2018 ter Brugge Lecture: problems with the Introduction of Innovations in Neurovascular Care. Can J Neurol Sci 2019;46:151–58 doi:10.1017/cjn.2018.391 pmid:30786939

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Fahed R,
    2. Darsaut TE,
    3. Raymond J

    . The Introduction of Innovations in Neurovascular Care: patient selection and randomized allocation. World Neurosurg 2018;118:e99–104 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.06.127 pmid:29945010

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Kallmes DF,
    2. Hanel R,
    3. Lopes D, et al

    . International retrospective study of the Pipeline Embolization Device: a multicenter aneurysm treatment study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:108–15 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4111 pmid:25355814

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
26. 26.↵
    1. Kallmes DF,
    2. Brinjikji W,
    3. Rabinstein AA

    . Letter to the editor: flow diversion in the treatment of intracranial aneurysm trial. J Neurosurg 2017;127:703–07 doi:10.3171/2016.12.JNS163176 pmid:28452612

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Bacchus E,
    2. Kate MP,
    3. Benomar A, et al

    . Inter-rater reliability of the simplified Modified Rankin Scale as an outcome measure for treated cerebral aneurysm patients. Neurochirurgie 2022 June 5. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1016/j.neuchi.2022.04.003 pmid:35662528

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Darsaut TE,
    2. Chapot R,
    3. Raymond J

    . Changing the rules of the game: the problem of surrogate angiographic outcomes in the evaluation of aneurysm treatments. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2020;41:2174–75 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6825 pmid:33033042

    FREE Full Text
29. 29.
    1. White PM,
    2. Lewis SC,
    3. Gholkar A, et al

    ; HELPS Trial Orators. Hydrogel-coated coils versus bare platinum coils for the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms (HELPS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011;377:1655–62 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60408-X pmid:21571149

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Roy D,
    3. White PM, et al

    ; the ICONE Collaborative Group. A randomized trial comparing platinum and hydrogel-coated coils in Patients Prone to Recurrence after Endovascular Treatment (the PRET Trial). Interv Neuroradiol 2008;14:73–83 doi:10.1177/159101990801400110 pmid:20557789

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.
    1. Darsaut TE,
    2. Findlay JM,
    3. Raymond J

    ; CURES Collaborative Group.The design of the Canadian UnRuptured Endovascular versus Surgery (CURES) trial. Can J Neurol Sci 2011;38:236–41 doi:10.1017/s0317167100011392 pmid:21320826

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.
    1. Darsaut TE,
    2. Raymond J

    . STAT Collaborative Group. The design of the STenting in Aneurysm Treatments (STAT) trial. J Neurointerv Surg 2012;4:178–81 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2011-010065 pmid:21990519

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
33. 33.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Januel AC,
    3. Iancu D, et al

    . The RISE trial: A Randomized Trial on Intra-Saccular Endobridge devices. Interv Neuroradiol 2020;26:61–67 doi:10.1177/1591019919886412 pmid:31690151

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. McDougall CG,
    2. Johnston SC,
    3. Gholkar A, et al

    ; MAPS Investigators. Bioactive versus bare platinum coils in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: the MAPS (Matrix and Platinum Science) trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:935–42 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3857 pmid:24481333

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
35. 35.
    1. Molyneux AJ,
    2. Clarke A,
    3. Sneade M, et al

    . Cerecyte coil trial: angiographic outcomes of a prospective randomized trial comparing endovascular coiling of cerebral aneurysms with either Cerecyte or bare platinum coils. Stroke 2012;43:2544–50 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.657254 pmid:22836352

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
36. 36.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Klink R,
    3. Chagnon M, et al

    ; PRET Collaborative Group. Patients prone to recurrence after endovascular treatment: periprocedural results of the PRET randomized trial on large and recurrent aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:1667–76 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4035 pmid:24948508

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
37. 37.↵
    1. Cagnazzo F,
    2. Mantilla D,
    3. Rouchaud A, et al

    . Endovascular treatment of very large and giant intracranial aneurysms: comparison between reconstructive and deconstructive techniques-a meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:852–58 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5591 pmid:29545248

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
38. 38.↵
    1. Madaelil TP,
    2. Moran CJ,
    3. Cross DT 3rd., et al

    . Flow diversion in ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:590–95 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5030 pmid:28007770]

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
39. 39.↵
    1. Fiorella D,
    2. Gache L,
    3. Frame D, et al

    . How safe and effective are flow diverters for the treatment of unruptured small/medium intracranial aneurysms of the internal carotid artery? Meta-analysis for evidence-based performance goals. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:869–73 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015535 pmid:32005761

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
40. 40.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Darsaut TE,
    3. Molyneux AJ

    ; TEAM Collaborative Group. A trial on unruptured intracranial aneurysms (the TEAM trial): results, lessons from a failure and the necessity for clinical care trials. Trials 2011;12:64 doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-64 pmid:21375745

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Darsaut TE,
    2. Desal H,
    3. Cognard C, et al

    . Comprehensive Aneurysm Management (CAM): an all-inclusive care trial for unruptured intracranial aneurysms. World Neurosurg 2020;141:e770–77 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.06.018 pmid:32526362

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    1. Lecler A,
    2. Raymond J,
    3. Rodriguez-Regent C, et al

    . Intracranial aneurysms: recurrences more than 10 years after endovascular treatment: a prospective cohort study, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Radiology 2015;277:173–80 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142496 pmid:26057784

    CrossRefPubMed