Abstract
Second-generation coils have been available since 2002. We wanted to assess their performance and appraise available evidence. Therefore we performed a systematic review of the literature from 2002 to 2007. There were 27 studies with a total of 2390 patients that met pre-specified inclusion criteria. All studies were classed as having a high risk of bias. There were no randomized trials and for most studies results were not independently assessed and follow-up periods were short (mean 7 months). There were large differences in demographic and aneurysm characteristics, making comparisons between coil cohorts difficult. Procedure-related morbidity and mortality were similar for all coil types. Hemorrhagic events during follow-up were few, in the range of 1%/year for all coil types. The available literature is of poor quality and clinical series provide very little evidence in favor of second-generation coils. Positive randomized trial results are needed to justify routine clinical use. This systematic review illustrates the failure of the industry, the regulatory authorities, and the neuro- interventional community combined to provide a reliable and prudent approach to the introduction of new devices.
Cite
CITATION STYLE
White, P. M., & Raymond, J. (2009, February). Endovascular coiling of cerebral aneurysms using “bioactive” or coated-coil technologies: A systematic review of the literature. American Journal of Neuroradiology. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1324
Register to see more suggestions
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.