Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:39:22.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

F.04 Flow diversion in the treatment of aneurysms: A randomized care trial and registry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2016

T Darsaut
Affiliation:
(Edmonton)
J Gentric
Affiliation:
(Brest)
D Iancu
Affiliation:
(Ottawa)
M Chow
Affiliation:
(Edmonton)
J Rempel
Affiliation:
(Edmonton)
A Weill
Affiliation:
(Montreal)
D Roy
Affiliation:
(Montreal)
J Raymond
Affiliation:
(Montreal)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Background: The Flow diversion in the treatment of Intracranial Aneurysm (FIAT) trial was designed to guide the clinical use of flow diversion. Methods: FIAT proposed randomized allocation flow diversion or standard management (observation, coiling, parent vessel occlusion, or clipping), and a registry of non-randomized patients treated with flow diversion. Primary safety outcome was death or dependency (mRS > 2) at 3 months. Primary efficacy outcome was angiographic occlusion at 3-12 months combined with independent clinical outcome. Results: Of 112 participating patients recruited, 78 were randomized, and 34 received flow diversion within the registry. The study was halted for safety concerns. Twelve of 73 patients (16.4%; CI [9.7% -26.7%]) who were allocated or received flow diversion at any time were dead (n=8) or dependent (n=4) at 3 months or more, crossing a predefined safety boundary. Death or dependency occurred in 5 of 36 patients randomly allocated flow diversion and in 5 of 36 patients allocated standard treatment (13.9%; [6.1%-28.7%]). Efficacy was below hypothesized expectations: 15 of 36 patients (41.7%; [27.1%-57.8%]) randomly allocated flow diversion failed to reach the primary outcome, as compared to 11 of 36 patients allocated standard treatment (30.1%; [18.0%-46.9%]). Conclusions: Flow diversion was not as safe and effective as hypothesized. More randomized trials are needed.

Type
Platform Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences Inc. 2016