Comparison of Blister Aneurysm Treatment Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Objective Blood blister aneurysms are small, thin-walled, rapidly growing side-wall aneurysms that have proven particularly difficult to treat, and evidence-based guidance for treatment strategies is lacking. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to aggregate the available data and compare the three primary treatment modalities. Methods We performed a comprehensive literature search according to PRISMA guidelines followed by an indirect meta-analysis that compares the safety and efficacy of surgical, flow-diverting stents (FDS), and other endovascular approaches for the treatment of ruptured blood blister aneurysms. Results A total of 102 studies were included for quantitative synthesis with sample sizes of 687 treated surgically, 704 treated endovascularly without FDS, and 125 treated via flow-diversion. Comparatively, FDS achieved significantly reduced rates of perioperative retreatment compared to both surgical (P=0.025) and non-FDS endovascular (P<0.001). The FDS subgroup also achieved a significantly lower incidence of perioperative rebleed (P<0.001), perioperative hydrocephalus (P=0.012), postoperative infarction (P=0.002), postoperative hydrocephalus (P<0.001), and postoperative vasospasm (P=0.002) when compared to those patients in the open surgical subgroup. While no significant differences were found between groups on the basis of functional outcomes, angiographic outcomes detailed by rates of radiographic complete occlusion were highest for surgical (90.7%, 262/289) and FDS (89.1%, 98/110) subgroups versus the non-FDS endovascular subgroup at (82.7%, 268/324). Conclusion Flow-diversion appears to be an effective treatment strategy for ruptured BBAs with lower rates of perioperative complications when compared to surgical and other endovascular techniques but studies investigating long-term outcomes following flow-diversion warrant further study.