Why the study?
The prevalence and appropriate management of intracranial aneurysms in professional athletes remain unknown, leading to clinical uncertainty and a lack of guidelines.
How should dual antiplatelet therapy be managed in a professional contact sport athlete following endovascular treatment of an intracranial aneurysm?
How should dual antiplatelet therapy be managed in a professional contact sport athlete following endovascular treatment of an intracranial aneurysm?
This case report highlights the unique challenges and lack of guidelines for managing dual antiplatelet therapy in professional contact sport athletes following endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms.
Endovascular treatment may be feasible for incidental aneurysms in athletes; leaves open sport-specific guidelines and prospective data.
INTRODUCTION: While intracranial aneurysms are common lesions affecting between 1 and 5% of the general population, the prevalence in professional athletes remains unknown. The result is uncertainty and lack of guidelines on appropriate treatment of these patients. CASE PRESENTATION: A 29-year-old professional soccer player presented in our hospital with an incidentally found intracranial aneurysm. After detailed depiction of the aneurysm and interdisciplinary discussion, endovascular treatment using a flow diverter was chosen to be the best treatment modality. Postinterventional medication consisted of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel. The main challenge in managing the case of our patient was the combination of the dual antiplatelet treatment regime with his professional career in a contact sport. CONCLUSION: Due to lack of literature or similar reports regarding the management of professional athletes with intracranial aneurysms, the optimal treatment strategy remains unclear. Even though decisions should be made dynamically and case-adapted to each situation, developing a registry could help provide guidance and new ideas for similar cases in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Etter et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: