Skip to main content
Login | Suomeksi | På svenska | In English

Browsing by Author "Virta, Jyri"

Sort by: Order: Results:

  • Rantamo, Anni; Gallé, Camille; Numminen, Jussi; Virta, Jyri; Tanskanen, Päivi; Lindroos, Ann-Christine; Resendiz-Nieves, Julio; Lehecka, Martin; Niemelä, Mika; Haeren, Roel; Raj, Rahul (2024)
    Background The use of antithrombotic medication following acute flow diversion for a ruptured intracranial aneurysm (IA) is challenging with no current guidelines. We investigated the incidence of treatment-related complications and patient outcomes after flow diversion for a ruptured IA before and after the implementation of a standardized antithrombotic medication protocol. Methods We conducted a single-center retrospective study including consecutive patients treated for acutely ruptured IAs with flow diversion during 2015–2023. We divided the patients into two groups: those treated before the implementation of the protocol (pre-protocol) and those treated after the implementation of the protocol (post-protocol). The primary outcomes were hemorrhagic and ischemic complications. A secondary outcome was clinical outcome using the modified Ranking Scale (mRS). Results Totally 39 patients with 40 ruptured IAs were treated with flow diversion (69% pre-protocol, 31% post-protocol). The patient mean age was 55 years, 62% were female, 63% of aneurysms were in the posterior circulation, 92% of aneurysms were non-saccular, and 44% were in poor grade on admission. Treatment differences included the use of glycoprotein IIb/ IIIa inhibitors (pre-group 48% vs. post-group 100%), and the use of early dual antiplatelets (pre-group 44% vs. 92% postgroup). The incidence of ischemic complications was 37% and 42% and the incidence of hemorrhagic complications was 30% and 33% in the pre- and post-groups, respectively, with no between-group differences. There were three (11%) aneurysm re-ruptures in the pre-group and none in the post-group. There were no differences in mortality or mRS 0–2 between the groups at 6 months. Conclusion We found no major differences in the incidence of ischemic or hemorrhagic complications after the implementation of a standardized antithrombotic protocol for acute flow diversion for ruptured IAs. There is an urgent need for more evidence-based guidelines to optimize antithrombotic treatment after flow diversion in the setting of subarachnoid hemorrhage.