Abstract
Background Dolichoectatic Vertebrobasilar fusiform aneurysm (DVBFAs) presents a clinical challenge due to its complex anatomical features and associated neurological complications. This meta-analysis evaluates the clinical outcomes of endovascular treatment (EVT), open surgery, and conservative management for VBDA.
Methods A systematic review of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify studies reporting on radiologically confirmed DVBFAs. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and mortality rates. Meta-regression was performed to identify potential predictors of treatment outcomes.
Results Ten studies with 219 patients were analyzed. Of the cohort, 58.4% underwent EVT, 24.6% received open surgery, and 16.9% were managed conservatively. The overall proportion of patients achieving a good clinical outcome (mRS <3) was 46.8%, with EVT showing the highest proportion at 59.4%, compared to 32.3% for open surgery and 24.7% for conservative management (p = 0.0145). The overall mortality rate was 25.98%, with EVT having the lowest mortality rate at 10.06%, followed by open surgery at 44.44% and conservative management at 63.30% (p = 0.0004). Subgroup analyses revealed statistically significant differences between treatment approaches in clinical outcomes and mortality.
Conclusion EVT appears to provide better clinical outcomes for DVBFAs, though mortality rates remain high across all treatment modalities. The absence of significant differences in subgroup analysis suggests the need for further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of EVT vs. conservative management to establish definitive treatment guidelines.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This review received no financial or non-financial support.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
No IRB is required for this review
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
E-mail addresses: Nourshaheen40{at}gmial.com, panagiotis.mastorakos{at}gmail.com, michael.gooch{at}jefferson.edu, edgar-samaniego{at}uiowa.edu, pascal.jabbour{at}jefferson.edu, santy-ortega{at}uiowa.edu, oliverflouty{at}gmail.com, kathleen-dlouhy{at}uiowa.edu
Data Availability
All data, analytic code, and materials used in this review are available upon reasonable request ?from the corresponding author.?
