Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39630412›Full record

SynthesisTranslational stroke research2025

Comparative Analysis of Stent-Assisted Versus Non-Stent-Assisted Coiling in the Management of Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Yu-Hu Ma, Yong-Lin He, Xiao-Yue Zhang, Rui Shang, Hai-Tao Hu, Ting Wang, Sen Lin, Ya-Wen Pan, Chang-Wei Zhang

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Translational stroke research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Early clinical experience with the ACCEROInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Yu-Hu Ma *Department of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Yong-Lin He *Department of Neurosurgery, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Xiao-Yue ZhangThe First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Rui ShangDepartment of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Hai-Tao HuDepartment of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Ting WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Sen LinDepartment of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Ya-Wen PanDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Chang-Wei ZhangDepartment of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. zhangcw1976@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of SAC compared to non-SAC in the treatment of RIA, integrating evidence from high-quality studies to guide clinical practice.

methodsA meta-analysis was conducted to compare SAC with coiling alone and BAC in the treatment of RIA. Primary outcomes were immediate and follow-up aneurysm occlusion rates, along with perioperative hemorrhagic and ischemic complication rates.

resultsA total of thirteen retrospective cohort studies were included, comprising 3,086 patients, with 1,078 in the SAC group and 2,008 in the non-SAC group. The immediate complete occlusion rates were similar between the SAC and non-SAC groups (59.1% vs. 61.4%; RR = 1.00; 95% CI [0.94, 1.07]; p = 0.92). However, the SAC group demonstrated a significantly higher long-term complete occlusion rate (61.3% vs. 40.6%; RR = 1.44; 95% CI [1.22, 1.69]; p < 0.001). The incidence of ischemic complications was greater in the SAC group (12.2% vs. 10.0%; RR = 1.68; 95% CI [1.37, 2.07]; p < 0.001), as was the incidence of hemorrhagic complications (7.3% vs. 5.1%; RR = 1.55; 95% CI [1.15, 2.08]; p = 0.004). Perioperative mortality was also elevated in the SAC group (6.7% vs. 6.8%; RR = 1.37; 95% CI [1.00, 1.88]; p = 0.048), with a non-significant trend towards higher long-term mortality (9.8% vs. 9.2%; RR = 1.35; 95% CI [0.98, 1.87]; p = 0.068). Functional outcomes at discharge (76.0% vs. 71.0%; RR = 0.97; 95% CI [0.92, 1.02]; p = 0.237), six months (57.8% vs. 60.8%; RR = 0.93; 95% CI [0.81, 1.07]; p = 0.296), and at the last follow-up (RR = 1.01; 95% CI [0.97, 1.06]; p = 0.592) were comparable between the two groups.

conclusionsSAC significantly improves long-term occlusion rates for RIA compared to non-SAC, despite a higher incidence of complications. Careful patient selection and optimization of antiplatelet therapy may enhance the safety and efficacy of SAC for RIA treatment.

Indexed as

Aneurysm, RupturedEmbolization, TherapeuticEndovascular ProceduresIntracranial AneurysmStentsHumansTreatment OutcomeAneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhageBalloon-assisted coilingMeta-analysisRuptured intracranial aneurysmsStent-assisted coiling

Identifiers

PMID39630412
PMCPMC12202655

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.