Flow diverters in the treatment of intracranial dissecting aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and efficacy

Background Intracranial dissecting aneurysms present clinical challenges, demanding immediate intervention due to their high bleeding risk. While traditional treatments have limitations, the potential of flow diverters shows promise but remains a subject of ongoing debate for optimal management. The aim of this study was assess the safety and efficacy of flow diverters in the treatment of intracranial dissecting aneurysms. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following established guidelines. The search encompassed PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to July 20, 2023. Eligible studies reporting outcomes of interest were included, and relevant data were extracted and analyzed using R software. Results The analysis, based on data pooled from 20 included studies involving 329 patients, revealed a favorable functional outcome rate of 89.7% at the last follow-up. The mortality rate during the follow-up period was 2.4%, decreasing to 0.9% when excluding the outlier study. In the final angiographic follow-up, a complete occlusion rate of 71.7% and an adequate occlusion rate of 88.3% were observed. Notably, studies with longer angiographic follow-up times exhibited lower rates of complete (P=0.02) and adequate (P<0.01) occlusion. A minimal aneurysm recurrence/rebleeding rate of 0.1% was noted, while in-stent stenosis/thrombosis occurred at a rate of 1.14%. Additionally, ischemic events/infarctions were seen in 3.3% of cases. The need for retreatment was minimal, with a rate of 0.9%, and the technical success rate was impressively high at 99.1%. Conclusion This study highlights the safety and efficacy of flow diverters in treating intracranial dissecting aneurysms. Further research, encompassing larger multicenter studies with extended follow-up periods, is crucial for comprehending occlusion dynamics, refining treatment strategies, improving long-term outcomes, and addressing methodological limitations.