Publications

BACKGROUND: Volatile and intravenous anesthetics have substantial effects on physiological functions, notably influencing neurological function and susceptibility to injury. Despite the importance of the anesthetic approach, data on its relative risks or benefits during surgical clipping or endovascular treatments for unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) remains scant. We investigated whether using volatile anesthetics alone or in combination with propofol infusion yields superior neurological outcomes following UIA obliteration.

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 1001 patients who underwent open or endovascular treatment for UIA, of whom 596 had short- and long-term neurological outcome data (modified Rankin Scale) recorded. Multivariable ordinal regression analysis was performed to examine the association between the anesthetic approach and outcomes.

RESULTS: Of 1001 patients, 765 received volatile anesthetics alone, while 236 received propofol infusion and volatile anesthetics (combined anesthetic group). Short-term neurological outcome data were available for 619 patients and long-term data for 596. No significant correlation was found between the anesthetic approach and neurologic outcomes, irrespective of the type of procedure (open craniotomy or endovascular treatment). The combined anesthetic group had a higher rate of ICU admission (p < 0.001) and longer ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS, p < 0.001). Similarly, a subgroup analysis revealed longer ICU and hospital LOS (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.001, respectively) in patients who underwent endovascular UIA obliteration under a combined anesthetic approach (n = 678).

CONCLUSIONS: The addition of propofol to volatile anesthetics during UIA obliteration does not provide short- or long-term benefits to neurologic outcomes. Compared to volatile anesthetics alone, the combination of propofol and volatile anesthetics may be associated with an increased rate of ICU admission, as well as longer ICU and hospital LOS.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Flow diversion (FD) for posterior circulation aneurysms, such as proximal posterior inferior cerebellar artery (PICA) aneurysms, remains "off-label" and controversial. Although there are reports of using FD in the vertebral artery (VA) to treat PICA aneurysms, the differences between structural PICA-origin variants have not been explored. We analyzed PICA aneurysms treated with FD, assessed radiographic and clinical outcomes, and presented a novel classification of the PICA origin in relationship to aneurysm anatomy.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of prospective data for intracranial aneurysms treated with FD at a major academic institution from 2013 to 2022. Proximal PICA aneurysms that underwent FD placement in the V4 segment of the vertebral artery were included for analysis. A literature review was performed on PubMed to evaluate previously published cases. The PICA origin was characterized by 4 distinct subtypes. Type 1 describes the PICA originating adjacent/separate to the aneurysm neck, Type 2 with the PICA originating from the aneurysm neck, Type 3 with the PICA originating from the aneurysm dome, and Type 4 (True PICA aneurysm) with the aneurysm located proximally on PICA, distal to the PICA-VA junction.

RESULTS: Thirteen proximal PICA aneurysms were identified and included in the analysis. Patients were primarily female (76.9%), with a median age of 62 years. The aneurysm median maximum diameter was 5.8 mm. From the total sample (institutional and literature review cases), type 1 had a 100% complete and near-complete occlusion rate, type 2 had 75.0%, type 3 had 88.9%, and type 4 had 75%. The overall complete and near-complete occlusion rate was 83.3% (20/24).

CONCLUSION: FD in the V4 VA segment is an effective way to treat proximal PICA aneurysms. Exploring the relationship between PICA origin is a helpful method in predicting occlusion rates for proximal PICA aneurysms and may lead to improved treatment considerations.