Purpose To identify and apply an optimized P2Y reaction units (PRU) threshold for implementing modified antiplatelet preparation to prevent thromboembolic events in patients nonresponsive to clopidogrel (clopidogrel nonresponders) undergoing coil embolization of unruptured aneurysms and to evaluate the clinical validity. Materials and Methods The optimal PRU threshold for prediction of thromboembolic events was determined with the Youden index in post hoc analysis of a previous, prospectively enrolled cohort of 165 patients in whom the antiplatelet regimen was not modified. This optimal PRU threshold was used to define clopidogrel nonresponders in a prospective validation study of 244 patients. Standard preparation (aspirin, clopidogrel) was maintained for 126 patients responsive to clopidogrel (clopidogrel responders, 51.6%), and modified preparation (aspirin, prasugrel) was prescribed prior to embolization for 118 clopidogrel nonresponders (48.4%). Fifty-seven clopidogrel nonresponders from the previous cohort who did not receive the modified preparation were included as a historical control group. Thromboembolic and bleeding events were compared among groups by using logistic regression analysis. Results Post hoc analysis from the previous cohort yielded PRU of at least 220 as the optimal threshold for modified preparation selection. The thromboembolic event rate of the clopidogrel responders (one of 126 [0.8%]) was lower than that of the historical control group that received standard preparation (seven of 57 patients [12.3%]; adjusted risk difference [RD], -10.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -18.5, -1.7; P = .015) and was similar to that of clopidogrel nonresponders who received modified preparation (one of 118 [0.8%]; adjusted RD, -0.5%; 95% CI: -3.1, 2.1; P = .001 for noninferiority; P = .699 for superiority). Bleeding event rates did not differ among groups (four of 126 clopidogrel responders [3.2%] vs four of 57 clopidogrel nonresponders that received standard preparation [7.0%] [adjusted RD, -4.5%; 95% CI: -11.1, 3.4; P = .228] vs five of 118 clopidogrel nonresponders that received modified preparation [4.2%] [adjusted RD, -0.6%; 95% CI: -5.8, 4.2; P = .813]). Conclusion Patients undergoing coil embolization of unruptured aneurysms, regardless of clopidogrel responsiveness, had low thromboembolic risk when using PRU of at least 220 as the threshold for implementing modified antiplatelet preparation with prasugrel. RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage is the most devastating form of stroke. Many pathological mechanisms ensue after cerebral aneurysm rupture, including hydrocephalus, apoptosis of endothelial cells and neurons, cerebral edema, loss of blood-brain barrier, abnormal cerebral autoregulation, microthrombosis, cortical spreading depolarization and macrovascular vasospasm. Although studied extensively through experimental and clinical trials, current treatment guidelines to prevent delayed cerebral ischemia is limited to oral nimodipine, maintenance of euvolemia, induction of hypertension if ischemic signs occur and endovascular therapy for patients with continued ischemia after induced hypertension. Future investigations will involve agents targeting vasodilation, anticoagulation, inhibition of apoptosis pathways, free radical neutralization, suppression of cortical spreading depolarization and attenuation of inflammation.

Background:Basilar apex aneurysms constitute 5–8% of all intracranial aneurysms, and their treatment remains challenging for both microsurgical and endovascular approaches. The perceived drawback of the microsurgical approach is its invasiveness leading to increased surgical morbidity. However, many high-volume centers have shown excellent clinical results with better occlusion rates compared to endovascular treatment. With endovascular therapy taking a larger role in the management of cerebral aneurysms, the future role of microsurgery for basilar apex aneurysm treatment is unclear.Methods:We performed a literature search to review the microsurgical and endovascular outcomes for basilar apex aneurysms.Results:Many studies have examined the efficacy of microsurgical and endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms, including large randomized trials such as ISAT and BRAT, prospective observational series such as ISUIA, and many single-center retrospective reviews. The recruitment number for posterior circulation aneurysms, specifically for basilar apex aneurysms, was limited in most prospective trials, thus failing to offer clear guidance on basilar apex aneurysm treatment. Recent single-center series report good clinical outcomes between 57–92% for surgical series and 73–96% in endovascular series. The durability of aneurysm occlusion remains superior in surgical cases. The techniques and devices in endovascular treatment have improved treatment aneurysm occlusion rates but more follow-up is needed to confirm long-term durability.Conclusions:Both microsurgical and endovascular approaches should be complementing each other to treat basilar apex aneurysms. Although endovascular therapy has taken a larger role in the treatment of basilar apex aneurysms, many indications still exist for the use of microsurgery. Advancements in microsurgical techniques and good case selection will allow for acceptably low morbidity after surgical treatment while maintaining its superior durability.

Microsurgery for BBA clipping can be performed safely with simple surgical approaches: subtemporal and LSO. There are several factors determining the approach selected. Poor patient outcome in BBA was highly associated with poor preoperative clinical grade and large size of aneurysm dome.