Intraprocedural rupture (IPR) during coil embolization (CE) of an intracranial aneurysm is a significant clinical concern that necessitates a comprehensive understanding of its clinical and hemodynamic predictors. Between January 2012 and December 2023, 435 saccular cerebral aneurysms were treated with CE at our institution. The inclusion criterion was extravasation or coil protrusion during CE. Postoperative data were used to confirm rupture points, and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis was performed to assess hemodynamic characteristics, focusing on maximum pressure (Pmax) and wall shear stress (WSS). IPR occurred in six aneurysms (1.3%; three ruptured and three unruptured), with a dome size of 4.7 ± 1.8 mm and a D/N ratio of 1.5 ± 0.5. There were four aneurysms in the internal carotid artery (ICA), one in the anterior cerebral artery, and one in the middle cerebral artery. ICA aneurysms were treated using adjunctive techniques (three balloon-assisted, one stent-assisted). Two aneurysms (M1M2 and A1) were treated simply, yet had relatively small and misaligned domes. CFD analysis identified the rupture point as a flow impingement zone with Pmax in five aneurysms (83.3%). Time-averaged WSS was locally reduced around this area (1.3 ± 0.7 [Pa]), significantly lower than the aneurysmal dome (p < 0.01). Hemodynamically unstable areas have fragile, thin walls with rupture risk. A microcatheter was inserted along the inflow zone, directed towards the caution area. These findings underscore the importance of identifying hemodynamically unstable areas during CE. Adjunctive techniques should be applied with caution, especially in small aneurysms with axial misalignment, to minimize the rupture risk.

UNASSIGNED: Intraprocedural rupture (IPR) is a serious complication of endovascular coil embolization of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs). Although outcomes after IPR are poor, methods to prevent subsequent neurological deterioration have not yet been investigated. We evaluated the risk factors and management strategies for IPR, particularly the role of balloon guiding catheters (BGCs) in rapid hemostasis.
UNASSIGNED: We retrospectively reviewed all UIA cases treated with coil embolization at three institutions between 2003 and 2021, focusing on preoperative radiological data, operative details, and outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: In total, 2,172 aneurysms were treated in 2026 patients. Of these, 19 aneurysms in 19 patients (0.8%) ruptured during the procedure. Multivariate analysis revealed that aneurysms with a bleb (OR: 3.03, 95% CI: 1.21 to 7.57, p = 0.017), small neck size (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.85, p = 0.007), and aneurysms in the posterior communicating artery (PcomA) (OR: 4.92, 95% CI: 1.19 to 20.18, p = 0.027) and anterior communicating artery (AcomA) (OR: 12.08, 95% CI: 2.99 to 48.79, p < 0.001) compared with the internal carotid artery without PcomA were significantly associated with IPR. The incidence of IPR was similar between the non-BGC and BGC groups (0.9% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.822); however, leveraging BGC was significantly associated with lower morbidity and mortality rates after IPR (0% vs. 44%, p = 0.033).
UNASSIGNED: The incidence of IPR was relatively low. A bleb, small aneurysm neck, and location on PcomA and AcomA are independent risk factors for IPR. The use of BGC may prevent fatal clinical deterioration and achieve better clinical outcomes in patients with IPR.

OBJECTIVE: To report our experience with intraprocedural rupture (IPR) of intracranial aneurysms during endovascular treatment and evaluate alterations in vital signs as independent prognostic factors to predict the outcomes of IPR.
METHODS: Between January 2008 and August 2021, 34 patients (8 ruptured and 26 unruptured) were confirmed to have IPR based on our dataset with 3178 endovascular coiling procedures. The patients who underwent additional surgeries related to IPR were classified as the OP group (n=9), while those who did not receive additional surgeries were classified as the non-OP group (n=25). Vital signs were recorded during the procedure by anesthesiologists and analyzed.
RESULTS: Of the 34 patients included in this study, eight initially presented with subarachnoid hemorrhage due to a ruptured aneurysm. The clinical outcomes at discharge were significantly different between the two groups (p=0.046). In the OP group, five patients showed favorable outcomes at discharge, while four showed unfavorable outcomes. In the non-OP group, 23 patients showed favorable outcomes at discharge while two patients showed unfavorable outcomes. Maximal (MAX) systolic blood pressure (SBP) (odds ratio [OR] 1.520, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.084-2.110; p=0.037) and higher differential value MAX-median blood pressure (MBP) (OR 1.322, 95% CI 1.029-1.607; p=0.044) remained independent risk factors for poor prognosis after IPR on multivariate logistic regression analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: The MAX SBP and the difference between the maximal and baseline values of MBP are key factors in predicting the prognosis of patients after IPR, as well as providing useful information for predicting the outcome. Further research is required to confirm the relationship between naive pressure and prognosis.

UNASSIGNED: Intraprocedural rupture (IPR) is a devastating complication of endovascular treatment (EVT). Small-sized and ruptured aneurysms are independent predictors of IPR, which presents a technical challenge during EVT. We aimed to develop a score to quantify the individual patient risk of IPR in the EVT of small (<5 mm) ruptured aneurysms (SRAs).
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective review was conducted to interrogate databases prospectively maintained at two academic institutions in China from January 2009 to October 2016. We collected intraoperative angiograms and medical records to identify independent predictors of IPR using univariate and multivariable analyses. A risk score for IPR was derived using multivariable logistic regression analyses.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 290 enrolled patients, IPR occurred in 16 patients (5.5%). The univariate analysis showed that the rate of IPR was significantly higher in patients having aneurysms with a small basal outpouching (SBO), in patients having aneurysms concomitant with adjacent moderate atherosclerotic stenosis (ACAMAS), and in former or current smokers. Multivariate analyses showed that SBO [odds ratio (OR): 3.573; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.078-11.840; p = 0.037], vascular eloquence (VE; OR: 3.780; 95% CI: 1.080-13.224; p = 0.037), and ACAMAS (OR: 6.086; 95% CI: 1.768-20.955; p = 0.004) were significantly and independently associated with IPR. A three-point risk score (S-V-A) was derived to predict IPR [SBO (yes = 1), VE (yes = 1), and ACAMAS (yes = 1)].
UNASSIGNED: Intraprocedural rupture occurred in 5.5% of the patients during EVT of SRA. SBO, VE, and ACAMAS were independent risk factors of IPR in the EVT of SRA. Based on these variables, the S-V-A score may be useful in predicting IPR daily, but more confirmation studies are required.

BACKGROUND: The long-term outcomes of patients with intraprocedural aneurysm rupture (IPR) during endovascular coiling of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) remain unclear. We investigated the long-term outcomes and predictors of neurological outcomes in patients who sustained IPR during coil embolization of UIAs.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the medical record of 312 untreated UIAs in 284 patients who underwent endovascular coiling between April 2013 and July 2018.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up period for the entire cohort was 25.6 months. Twelve patients (3.8%) experienced IPR. The mean aneurysm size in the IPR cohort was significantly smaller than that in the no-IPR cohort (P = 0.045). The IPR cohort had a higher percentage of earlier subarachnoid hemorrhage from another aneurysm (P = 0.019), anterior communicating artery (AComA) aneurysm (P < 0.001), and basilar artery (BA) aneurysm (P = 0.022) than the no-IPR cohort. Neurologic deterioration was observed in 3 patients. The morbidity and mortality rates of the IPR cohort were 25% and 8.3%, respectively. Patients with IPR during coil embolization for AComA aneurysm did not develop neurological deterioration. Two of the 3 patients (66.7%) with a BA aneurysm had neurological deterioration. The proportion of patients with an mRS score of 0-2 at the last follow-up did not differ between the 2 cohorts (P = 0.608).
CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of functionally independent patients did not differ between patients with and without IPR. Patients with BA aneurysms who developed an IPR tended to exhibit more unfavorable clinical courses than patients with AcomA aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Intraprocedural rupture (IPR) is a rare complication that can occur during endovascular treatment (EVT) of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs). However, it universally leads to poor outcomes if not properly managed. In the present study, we sought to illuminate the risk factors for IPR during EVT of UIAs.
METHODS: The data from patients with UIAs who had undergone EVT in our center from January 2010 to March 2017 were retrospectively collected and reviewed. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic analysis were performed to analyze the risk factors for IPR.
RESULTS: A total of 1232 patients with 1312 unruptured aneurysms were included in the present study. IPR occurred in 11 patients (0.9%). Univariate analysis showed that cardiac comorbidities, irregular morphology, and location at the anterior communicating artery (AcomA) were significantly associated with the development of IPR (P < 0.05). In addition, stent placement was related to a lower risk of IPR compared with no stent placement (P = 0.024). The multivariate analysis showed that cardiac comorbidities (odds ratio [OR], 6.320; P = 0.016), irregular morphology (OR, 9.562; P = 0.001), and location on the AcomA (OR, 6.971; P = 0.006) were independent risk factors for IPR.
CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence rate of IPR was relatively low. Cardiac comorbidities, irregular morphology, and location on the AcomA are independent risk factors for IPR. Stents and flow diverters are safe and feasible in treating UIA, with a significantly low risk of IPR.

Endovascular coiling for intracranial aneurysms has become an accepted treatment with good clinical results and provides adequate protection against rebleeding and rupture of aneurysms. However, despite the experience, preparation, or skill of the physician, complications during endovascular treatment still occur. The main complications of endovascular coiling are: procedural aneurysmal perforations by the microcatheter, micro-guidewire, or coil, and thromboembolic events. Such situations are unexpected, complex, and can have devastating consequences. In this article, we present a comprehensive review of the two most common complications, aneurysmal perforation and thromboembolism during endovascular coiling, and how we can prevent or overcome these complications to achieve a satisfactory outcome. In addition, as the flow diverter has been become an important tool for management of large, wide necked, and other anatomically challenging aneurysms, we also describe complications stemming from the use of the tool, which remains a novel treatment option for complex aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Intraprocedural rerupture (IPR) of intracranial aneurysms during coil embolization is associated with significant periprocedural disability and death. However, whether this morbidity and mortality are secondary to an increased risk of vasospasm and hydrocephalus is unknown. The authors undertook this study to determine the in-hospital and long-term neurological outcomes for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) treated with coil embolization who suffer aneurysm rerupture during treatment.
METHODS: The records of 156 patients admitted with SAH from previously untreated, ruptured, intracranial aneurysms and treated with endovascular coiling between January 2007 and January 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Twelve patients (7.7%) experienced IPR during coil embolization.
RESULTS: Compared with the cohort of patients with uncomplicated coil embolization procedures, patients with aneurysm rerupture were more likely to require external ventricular drain (EVD) placement (91.7% vs 58.3%, p = 0.02) and postprocedural EVD placement (36.4% vs 7.1%, p = 0.01), to undergo permanent ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement (50.0% vs 18.8%, p = 0.02), to develop symptomatic vasospasm (50.0% vs 18.1%, p = 0.02), and to have longer lengths of hospital stay (median 21.5 days vs 15.0 days, p = 0.04). Admission Hunt and Hess, modified Fisher, and Barrow Neurological Institute grades did not differ between the 2 cohorts, nor did long-term functional neurological outcomes as assessed by the modified Rankin Scale.
CONCLUSIONS: Intraprocedural rerupture during coil embolization for ruptured intracranial aneurysms is associated with an increased risk of symptomatic vasospasm and need for temporary and permanent cerebrospinal fluid diversion for hydrocephalus.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate morphological predictors of intraprocedural rupture (IPR) during coil embolization of ruptured cerebral aneurysms.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted in 322 consecutive patients with ruptured cerebral aneurysms who were treated with coil embolization over an 8-year period from January 2005 to December 2012. The authors analyzed all available data with emphasis on morphological characteristics of the aneurysm as shown on baseline angiography in relation to IPR. Regarding aneurysm morphology, the authors classified patients according to multilobulation, presence of a daughter sac, and presence of a small basal outpouching (SBO).
RESULTS: The incidence of IPR was 4.8% (16 of 332). In terms of aneurysm configuration, the presence of multilobulation (100.0% [16 of 16] in the IPR group vs 89.2% [282 of 316] in the non-IPR group, p = 0.388) and daughter sac (75.0% [12 of 16] in the IPR group vs 59.2% [187 of 316] in the non-IPR group, p = 0.208) were not significantly associated with IPR. However, SBO, found in 9% (30 of 332) of the study population, was significantly associated with IPR (56.3% [9 of 16] in the IPR group vs 6.7% [21 of 316] in the non-IPR group, OR 18.06, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the authors\' data, the more general groups of multilobulation and daughter sac were not significantly associated with IPR, although the more specific subgroup with an SBO was. More confirmation studies on these results are required, but they point to the possibility that SBO (with its possible connection to basal rupture) is an important morphological risk factor for IPR during coiling. In addition, future comparison of coiling and clipping treatment for ruptured aneurysms associated with an SBO seems necessary.