Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Factors predicting the growth or rupture of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) remain under debate. Increased availability of neuro-imaging has led to increasing incidental findings, therefore understanding the natural history is vital to make appropriate management and follow-up decisions. We analysed a large dataset of UIAs to better identify patients at increased risk, therefore requiring enhanced monitoring and/or prophylactic intervention. METHODS: Electronic patient records were reviewed from consecutive patients regarding the following data: baseline demographics; past medical and smoking history; indication for imaging detecting the UIA(s); size, location and morphology of UIA(s), duration of imaging follow-up, detection of growth and rupture. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for UIA growth or rupture. Subgroup analysis was performed for 'small' aneurysms (<7mm). RESULTS: 445 UIAs in 274 patients were analysed. Total imaging follow-up was 2268 aneurysm-years (median 3.8 years/UIA). 27 UIAs grew (1.2% annually), and 15 ruptured (0.46%). 70.1% of UIAs were detected incidentally. Mean aneurysm diameter was 4.1mm.Logistic regression identified age < 50, autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), hypertension and diameter > 7mm as significant risk factors for growth/rupture. Additionally, previous smoking compared to current smoking was a protective factor against growth or rupture, but no significant difference was seen when comparing current- with non-smokers. Small aneurysm subgroup analysis identified diameter > 5mm, age < 50, ADPKD, and ongoing smoking as risk factors. No significant difference was observed in risk between those with and without previous SAH. CONCLUSIONS: This study underlines the need for imaging surveillance of even small UIAs. Smoking is a modifiable risk factor for growth/rupture of pre-existing aneurysms, while ADPKD is a particularly strong risk factor.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spencer et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: