The Contour Neurovascular System Versus Woven Endobridge for Endovascular Embolization of Cerebral Aneurysms: A Propensity Score-matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Woven Endobridge (WEB) and the Contour Neurovascular System (Contour) are both intrasaccular devices used to treat cerebral aneurysms. We compared outcomes of these 2 devices using data from 2 large registries. METHODS: Data were sourced from the WorldWideWEB Consortium, which included 1363 cases treated with WEB from 2017, and a registry of 277 Contour cases from 10 European centers starting the same year. Patient demographics, aneurysm characteristics, procedural specifics, and outcomes were analyzed. Propensity score matching was applied for comparison. RESULTS: Before matching, the Contour group had more men (37.9% vs 30.8%), more asymptomatic cases (83.4% vs 70.3%), and fewer acute subarachnoid hemorrhage cases (10.8% vs 26.2%). After matching, no significant differences were found in demographics or aneurysm characteristics between groups. The median age was 60 years, and median aneurysm dimensions were comparable. Logistic regression showed no significant differences between WEB and Contour in achieving complete occlusion (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01, 95% CI, 0.67-1.52, P = .971), adequate occlusion (OR = 0.85, 95% CI, 0.41-1.76, P = .665), or achieving modified Rankin Scale 0 to 2 at last follow-up (OR = 0.48, 95% CI, 0.21-1.02, P = .064). Retreatment (OR = 2.23, P = .086), thromboembolic complications (OR = 0.75, P = .452), and adjunctive treatment use (OR = 1.93, P = .141) were also similar. CONCLUSION: The WEB and Contour demonstrated comparable clinical and angiographic outcomes in this large multicenter study comprised majority small, asymptomatic cerebral aneurysms.