Small versus Large Woven EndoBridge Devices for Intracranial Aneurysms: Results from the WorldWideWEB Multicenter Study
Author Block: F. Dugar1, T. D. L. Nguyen-Kim1, A. Dmytriw2, D. Coluccia1, M-N. Psychogios3, P. Sporns1; 1Zurich/CH, 2Boston, MA/US, 3Basel/CH
Purpose: Smaller Woven EndoBridge (WEB) devices (≤ 4.5 mm) for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms are technically challenging to deploy, and data on their safety and efficacy remain scarce. This study compared functional, anatomic, and safety outcomes of small WEBs with those of large (> 4.5 mm) and very large (> 7.5 mm) devices.
Methods or Background: The WorldWideWEB consortium is a retrospective, multicenter collaboration across 30 international institutions, including adults with intracranial aneurysms treated with WEB. Patients were stratified into small (≤ 4.5 mm) and large (> 4.5 mm) groups; a subanalysis compared small and very large (> 7.5 mm) devices. The primary outcome was retreatment rate. Secondary outcomes comprised mRS, anatomic outcomes periprocedurally and at last follow-up (FU), and safety events, including intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and thromboembolic complications (TECs).
Results or Findings: Among 1473 patients, 229 (15.5%) received a small WEB. Baseline characteristics were similar. Retreatment was less frequent (4.3% vs 8.8%, p = 0.037) and complete occlusion higher with small WEBs (periprocedurally: 57.1% vs 36.6%, p < 0.001; last FU: 76.2% vs 58.5%, p < 0.001). Median mRS at last FU was comparable (1 [1–2] vs 1 [1–2], p = 0.88), as were safety events (ICH 2.6% vs 0.9%, p = 0.102; TECs 3.1% vs 3.9%, p = 0.686). Very large WEBs had higher retreatment (16.1%, p < 0.001) and lower complete occlusion (periprocedurally: 32.2%, p < 0.001; last FU: 50.5%, p < 0.001), with comparable safety outcomes (ICH 0.9%, p = 0.266; TECs 4.5%, p = 0.512).
Conclusion: Small WEBs showed superior anatomic outcomes and lower retreatment rates compared with large devices, without significant differences in functional or safety outcomes.
Limitations: Absence of core laboratory adjudication for anatomic outcomes and retrospective design.
Funding for this study: No funding was provided for this study.
Has your study been approved by an ethics committee? Not applicable
Ethics committee - additional information: