Uncertainty and agreement regarding the role of flow diversion in the management of difficult aneurysms

Ethical Problems of Observational Studies and Big Data Compared to Randomized Trials

The temptation to use prospective observational studies (POS) instead of conducting difficult trials (RCTs) has always existed, but with the advent of powerful computers and large databases, it can become almost irresistible. We examine the potential consequences, were this to occur, by comparing two hypothetical studies of a new treatment: one RCT, and one POS. The POS inevitably submits more patients to inferior research methodology. In RCTs, patients are clearly informed of the research context, and 1:1 randomized allocation between experimental and validated treatment balances risks for each patient. In POS, for each patient, the risks of receiving inferior treatment are impossible to estimate. The research context and the uncertainty are down-played, and patients and clinicians are at risk of becoming passive research subjects in studies performed from an outsider's view, which potentially has extraneous objectives, and is conducted without their explicit, autonomous, and voluntary involvement and consent.

Decision-making patterns among expert and novice orthodontists and oral maxillofacial surgeons in the management of adults with Class III malocclusions and moderate degree of skeletal discrepancies

OBJECTIVE

To explore the decision-making patterns among expert and novice orthodontists and oral maxillofacial surgeons in the management of adults with Class III malocclusions and moderate skeletal discrepancies.

DESIGN

Self-administered questionnaire survey.

SETTING

Faculty of Dentistry, National University of Singapore and the University Dental Cluster, National University Hospital, Singapore.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 55 clinicians, comprising 13 expert orthodontists, 20 novice orthodontists, 10 expert oral maxillofacial surgeons and 12 novice oral maxillofacial surgeons.

METHODS

Clinicians assessed six adults with a Class III malocclusion and moderate skeletal discrepancy. They were asked to decide who could be managed exclusively by orthodontic camouflage, who would require combined orthodontic-orthognathic surgery as the only viable treatment, or who could be offered both treatment options.

RESULTS

The study found variable decision-making patterns among the clinicians in each case. Only 18.2%-40.0% of clinicians agreed that the cases selected were of moderate skeletal discrepancies and could be offered both treatment options whereas the rest were either more inclined to recommend orthodontic camouflage or orthognathic surgery. Intra-clinician agreement (n = 20) was only fair (Kappa value = 0.31). There was only slight inter-clinician agreement (n = 55) on their clinical decisions (Kappa value = 0.10). Clinical experience and dental specialty did not significantly influence clinicians' decisions. Oral and maxillofacial surgeons were 1.98 times more likely to indicate orthognathic surgery as the only viable treatment compared to the orthodontists (95% confidence interval = 1.15-3.42).

CONCLUSION

Variability in the patterns of decision-making for adults with a Class III malocclusion and moderate skeletal discrepancy was observed among the clinicians with low repeatability and agreement.

Flow Diversion in the Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms: A Pragmatic Randomized Care Trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Flow diversion is a recent endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms. We compared the safety and efficacy of flow diversion with the alternative standard management options.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A parallel group, prerandomized, controlled, open-label pragmatic trial was conducted in 3 Canadian centers. The trial included all patients considered for flow diversion. A Web-based platform 1:1 randomly allocated patients to flow diversion or 1 of 4 alternative standard management options (coiling with/without stent placement, parent vessel occlusion, surgical clipping, or observation) as prespecified by clinical judgment. Patients ineligible for alternative standard management options were treated with flow diversion in a registry. The primary safety outcome was death or dependency (mRS > 2) at 3 months. The composite primary efficacy outcome included the core lab-determined angiographic presence of a residual aneurysm, aneurysm rupture, progressive mass effect during follow-up, or death or dependency (mRS > 2) at 3-12 months.

RESULTS

Between May 2011 and November 2020, three hundred twenty-three patients were recruited: Two hundred seventy-eight patients (86%) had treatment randomly allocated (139 to flow diversion and 139 to alternative standard management options), and 45 (14%) received flow diversion in the registry. Patients in the randomized trial frequently had unruptured (83%), large (52% ≥10 mm) carotid (64%) aneurysms. Death or dependency at 3 months occurred in 16/138 patients who underwent flow diversion and 12/137 patients receiving alternative standard management options (relative risk, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.65-2.69; P = .439). A poor primary efficacy outcome was found in 30.9% (43/139) with flow diversion and 45.6% (62/136) of patients receiving alternative standard management options, with an absolute risk difference of 14.7% (95% CI, 3.3%-26.0%; relative risk, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.92; P = .014).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with mostly unruptured, large, anterior circulation (carotid) aneurysms, flow diversion was more effective than the alternative standard management option in terms of angiographic outcome.

Measuring clinical uncertainty and equipoise by applying the agreement study methodology to patient management decisions

Background

Clinical uncertainty and equipoise are vague notions that play important roles in contemporary problems of medical care and research, including the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. Our goal was to show how the reliability study methods normally used to assess diagnostic tests can be applied to particular management decisions to measure the degree of uncertainty and equipoise regarding the use of rival management options.

Methods

We first use thrombectomy in acute stroke as an illustrative example of the method we propose. We then review, item by item, how the various design elements of diagnostic reliability studies can be modified in order to measure clinical uncertainty.

Results

The thrombectomy example shows sufficient disagreement and uncertainty to warrant the conduct of additional randomized trials. The general method we propose is that a sufficient number of diverse individual cases sharing a similar clinical problem and covering a wide spectrum of clinical presentations be assembled into a portfolio that is submitted to a variety of clinicians who routinely manage patients with the clinical problem.

Discussion

Clinicians are asked to independently choose one of the predefined management options, which are selected from those that would be compared within a randomized trial that would address the clinical dilemma. Intra-rater agreement can be assessed at a later time with a second evaluation. Various professional judgments concerning individual patients can then be compared and analyzed using kappa statistics or similar methods. Interpretation of results can be facilitated by providing examples or by translating the results into clinically meaningful summary sentences.

Conclusions

Measuring the uncertainty regarding management options for clinical problems may reveal substantial disagreement, provide an empirical foundation for the notion of equipoise, and inform or facilitate the design/conduct of clinical trials to address the clinical dilemma.

The 2018 ter Brugge Lecture: Problems with the Introduction of Innovations in Neurovascular Care

Most endovascular innovations have been introduced into clinical care by showing good outcomes in small enthusiastic case series of selected patients. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have rarely been performed, except for acute ischemic stroke, but even then most trial designs were too explanatory to inform clinical decisions. In this article, we review 2 × 2 tables and forest plots that summarize RCT results to examine methodological issues in the design and interpretation of clinical studies. Research results can apply in practice when RCTs are all-inclusive, pragmatic trials. Common problems include the following: (i) using restrictive eligibility criteria in explanatory trials, instead of including the diversity of patients in need of care, which hampers future generalizability of results; (ii) ignoring an entire line of the 2 × 2 table and excluding patients who do not meet the proposed criteria of a diagnostic test in its evaluation (perfusion studies) which renders clinical inferences misleading; (iii) ignoring an entire column of the 2 × 2 table and comparing different patients treated using the same treatment instead of different treatments in the same patients (the "wrong axis" comparisons of prognostic studies and clinical experience) which leads to unjustified treatment decisions and actions; or (iv) combining all aforementioned problems (case series and epidemiological studies). The most efficient and reliable way to improve patient outcomes, after as well as long before research results are available, is to change the way we practice: to use care trials to guide care in the presence of uncertainty.

Factors Influencing Confidence in Diagnostic Ratings and Retreatment Recommendations in Coiled Aneurysms

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Angiographic occlusion and retreatment of coiled aneurysms are commonly used as surrogate end points in clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate the influence of aneurysm, patient, and rater characteristics on the confidence of visual evaluation of aneurysm coiling and retreatment decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-six participants of the Advanced Course in Endovascular Interventional Neuroradiology of the European Society of Neuroradiology were asked to evaluate digital subtraction angiography examinations of patients who had undergone endovascular coiling, by determining the grade of aneurysm occlusion, the change between immediate postprocedural and follow-up angiograms, their level of confidence, the technical difficulty of retreatment, and the best therapeutic approach. The experience, knowledge, and skills of each participant were assessed. The influence of rater and case characteristics on indicated confidence in diagnostic ratings and retreatment recommendations was analyzed.

RESULTS

Interrater reliability was moderate regarding the assessment of aneurysm occlusion grade (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.581) and substantial regarding change (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.776). Overall confidence in the diagnostic rating was high (median, "very certain"). Confidence was statistically significantly higher in cases that were generally rated as "worse." The odds of recommending retreatment were significantly higher in cases that were generally rated with higher mean confidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although overall confidence in the diagnostic rating was high, our study confirms the suboptimal interrater reliability of visual assessment of aneurysm occlusion as well as retreatment recommendations, rendering both questionable as primary outcome measures. Besides recurrence status, recommendation of retreatment is significantly influenced by patient age, aneurysm neck width, and characteristics of the therapist.

Decision-making and neurosurgeons' agreement in the management of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage based on computed tomography angiography

BACKGROUND

To determine the neurosurgeon's agreement in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) management with special emphasis on the rater's level of experience. A secondary aim was to analyse potential aneurysm variables associated with the therapeutic recommendation.

METHOD

Basic clinical information and admission computed tomography angiography (CTA) images of 30 consecutive aSAH patients were provided. Twelve neurosurgeons independently evaluated aneurysm characteristics and gave recommendations regarding the emergency management and aneurysm occlusion therapy. Inter-rater variability and predictors of treatment recommendation were evaluated.

RESULTS

There was an overall moderate agreement in treatment decision [κ = 0.43; 95% confidence interval ((CI), 0.387-0.474] with moderate agreement for surgical (κ = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.386-0.479) and endovascular treatment recommendation (κ = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.398-0.49). Agreement on detailed treatment recommendations including clip, coil, bypass, stent, flow diverter and ventriculostomy was low to moderate. Inter-rater agreement did not significantly differ between residents and consultants. Middle cerebral artery (MCA) aneurysm location was a positive predictor of surgical treatment [odds ratio (OR), 49.57; 95% CI, 10.416-235.865; p < 0.001], while patients aged >65 years (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.0434; p = 0.001), fusiform aneurysm type (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.044-0.747; p = 0.018) and intracerebral haematoma (ICA) aneurysm location (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.088-0.643; p = 0.005) were associated with a recommendation for endovascular treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Agreement on aSAH management varies considerably across neurosurgeons, while therapeutic decision-making is challenging on an individual patient level. However, patients aged >65 years, fusiform aneurysm shape and ICA location were associated with endovascular treatment recommendation, while MCA aneurysm location remains a surgical domain in the opinion of neurosurgeons without formal endovascular training.

Flow diversion in the treatment of aneurysms: a randomized care trial and registry

OBJECTIVE

The Flow Diversion in the Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysm Trial (FIAT) was designed to guide the clinical use of flow diversion, an innovative method to treat intracranial aneurysms, within a care trial and to study safety and efficacy.

METHODS

FIAT, conducted in 3 Canadian hospitals, proposed randomized allocation to flow diversion or standard management options (observation, coil embolization, parent vessel occlusion, or clip placement), and a registry of non-randomized patients treated with flow diversion. The primary safety outcome was death or dependency (modified Rankin Scale score > 2) at 3 months, to be determined for all patients who received flow diversion at any time. The primary efficacy outcome was angiographic occlusion at 3–12 months combined with an independent clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Of 112 participating patients recruited between May 2, 2011, and February 25, 2015, 78 were randomized (39 in each arm), and 34 received flow diversion within the registry. The study was halted due to safety concerns. Twelve (16%) of 75 patients (95% CI 8.9%–26.7%) who were allocated to or received flow diversion at any time were dead (n = 8) or dependent (n = 4) at 3 months or more, crossing a predefined safety boundary. Death or dependency occurred in 5 (13.2%) of 38 patients randomly allocated and treated by flow diversion (95% CI 5.0%–28.9%) and in 5 (12.8%) of 39 patients allocated to standard treatment (95% CI 4.8%–28.2%). Efficacy was below expectations of the trial hypothesis: 16 (42.1%) of 38 patients (95% CI 26.7%–59.1%) randomly allocated to flow diversion failed to reach the primary outcome, as compared with 14 (35.9%) of 39 patients allocated to standard treatment (95% CI 21.7%–52.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Flow diversion was not as safe and effective as hypothesized. More randomized trials are needed to determine the role of flow diversion in the management of aneurysms.

Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01349582 (clinicaltrials.gov)

Flow diversion of bifurcation aneurysms is more effective when the jailed branch is occluded: an experimental study in a novel canine model

BACKGROUND

Flow diverters (FDs) are increasingly used for bifurcation aneurysms. Failure of aneurysm occlusion may be caused by residual flow maintaining patency of the jailed branch along with the aneurysm. Our aim was to test whether endovascular occlusion of the jailed branch could improve efficacy of flow diversion of bifurcation aneurysms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixteen wide-necked lingual-carotid artery bifurcation aneurysms were created in eight canines. Patent aneurysms were randomly allocated 4 weeks later to flow diversion combined with jailed branch occlusion using coils and/or Onyx (n=6) or flow diversion alone (n=8). Angiographic results of aneurysm occlusion at 3 months were scored using an ordinal scale. Pathology specimens were photographed and neointimal coverage estimated using a semiquantitative scoring system.

RESULTS

Fourteen aneurysms were patent at 1 month. FD deployment was successful in all cases but, at 3-month follow-up, three devices had prolapsed into the aneurysm. None of the bifurcation aneurysms treated with FD alone were occluded at 3 months. Endovascular branch occlusion combined with flow diversion significantly improved aneurysm occlusion rates compared with flow diversion alone (median angiographic scores 2 vs 0: p=0.0137). Flow-limiting parent vessel stenosis was not observed in any arteries. Devices were covered with thick neointima in most cases, but patent aneurysms were associated with leaks or holes in the neointima covering the aneurysm neck.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment failures following flow diversion of bifurcation aneurysms can be caused by persistent flow to the jailed branch. Branch occlusion combined with flow diversion may improve angiographic occlusion scores of a canine bifurcation aneurysm model.

Shared decision-making in the context of unruptured intracranial aneurysms management

Shared decision-making practice has been encouraged in several clinical settings. In this model, clinical decisions are defined by doctors and patients based on the principle of patient autonomy. Shared decisions have been argued as an ethical clinical practice during complex and uncertain clinical situations. The best management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA) remains controversial. Despite the fact that shared decisions has probably been practiced, as far as we are aware it has not yet been evaluated, nor has it been standardized for patients presenting UIA. We aim to discuss possible roles, pros and cons of shared decision-making on the management of UIA.