This site usescookies, tags, and tracking settings to store information that help give you the very best browsing experience. Dismiss this warning

Letter to the Editor. Risk assessment of rupture in patients with small unruptured cerebral aneurysms

Tomoyuki Kawada Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan

Search for other papers by Tomoyuki Kawada in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
MD
View More View Less
Free access

TO THE EDITOR: Ikawa et al.1evaluated the rupture risk in patients with small unruptured cerebral aneurysms (Ikawa F, Morita A, Tominari S, et al. Rupture risk of small unruptured cerebral aneurysms.J Neurosurg.2020;132[1]:69–78). Treatment and rupture numbers of small unruptured cerebral aneurysms (UCAs) were 1132 and 23, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of a screening brain checkup, a history of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), uncontrolled hypertension, and location on the anterior communicating artery (ACoA) for rupture were 4.1 (1.2–14.4), 10.8 (2.3–51.1), 5.2 (1.8–15.3), and 5.0 (1.6–15.5), respectively. I have two comments on their study.

First, the authors concluded that the possible selection criteria for treating small UCAs included a history of SAH, uncontrolled hypertension, location on the ACoA, and young patients, which was inconsistent with multivariate analysis. Although the log-rank test showed no significant association of rupture with screening brain checkup, there is no statistical evidence of selecting young patients as a risk factor for rupture.

Second, they handled a small number of events for the multivariate analysis. Peduzzi et al. evaluated the effect of events per independent variable (EPV) in proportional hazards regression analysis.2,3One conclusion of this evaluation was that EPV values < 10 have some problems in maintaining validity of the statistical model. Although there is an opinion that EPV values < 10 are also acceptable for investigating the association,4a prediction model requires a stable number of events. Regarding this point, results presented by Ikawa et al. need further statistical considerations. The number of events was 23, and 2 independent variables can be used for the analysis. They presented relatively wide 95% CI ranges, which might be derived from unstable estimates. In any case, I recommend that EPV should be increased by using a longer follow-up duration or involving much larger sample sizes for risk estimation.

References

  • 1

    IkawaF,MoritaA,TominariS,et al.Rupture risk of small unruptured cerebral aneurysms.J Neurosurg.2020;132(1):6978.

  • 2

    ConcatoJ,PeduzziP,HolfordTR,FeinsteinAR.Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards analysis. I. Background, goals, and general strategy.J Clin Epidemiol.1995;48(12):14951501.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    PeduzziP,ConcatoJ,FeinsteinAR,HolfordTR.Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis.II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol.1995;48(12):15031510.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    VittinghoffE,McCullochCE.Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression.Am J Epidemiol.2007;165(6):710718.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Fusao Ikawa The Japan Neurosurgical Society for UCAS Japan Investigators; Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

Search for other papers by Fusao Ikawa in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
MD, PhD
,
Akio Morita The Japan Neurosurgical Society for UCAS Japan Investigators; Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan

Search for other papers by Akio Morita in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
MD, PhD
, and
Shinjiro Tominari The Japan Neurosurgical Society for UCAS Japan Investigators; Kyoto University School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan

Search for other papers by Shinjiro Tominari in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
MD, PhD

Response

We thank Prof. Tomoyuki Kawada for his important comments on our article. We would like to respond to these comments and questions.

As Professor Kawada commented, there is no statistical evidence for selecting young patients as a risk factor of rupture, and we could agree with your reasonable comment. Although patient age was not a significant variable in our multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis, the patients with treated UCAs were significantly younger than the patients with untreated UCAs (see Tables 4 and 5). As discussed in our article, younger age was a significant risk factor for rupture in small UCAs in previous reports.1,2Additionally, young age was the common existing variable of surgical indication for UCA.3,4Therefore, we added the young patients to the possible indication of interventional treatment for UCA in our conclusions.

Second, we also appreciate Professor Kawada pointing out the effect of EPV in our proportional hazards regression analysis. We should have discussed that point in our paper, as you mentioned. The small EPV in our study could lead to unstable estimates and overfitted models.

As we stated in the section of our paper on study limitations, this study was limited by the short follow-up duration based on post hoc analysis, not the planned prospective study targeting only the natural course of small UCAs (Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysm Study [UCAS] Japan); therefore, we conclude that further large prospective and longitudinal registered trials are needed to elucidate these issues. However, our study contained one of the largest cohorts of patients with UCAs in the world, and we believe the study can provide valuable information for neurosurgeons worldwide.

References

  • 1

    SonobeM,YamazakiT,YonekuraM,KikuchiH.Small unruptured intracranial aneurysm verification study: SUAVe study, Japan.Stroke.2010;41(9):19691977.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    SuzukiT,TakaoH,RapakaS,et al.Rupture risk of small unruptured intracranial aneurysms in Japanese adults.Stroke.2020;51(2):641643.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    EtminanN,BrownRDJr,BeseogluK,et al.The unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: a multidisciplinary consensus.Neurology.2015;85(10):881889.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    JuvelaS.Treatment scoring of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.Stroke.2019;50(9):23442350.

  • Collapse
  • Expand

Illustration from Hanna (pp 927–930). Copyright Barbara A. Hanna. Published with permission.

  • 1

    IkawaF,MoritaA,TominariS,et al.Rupture risk of small unruptured cerebral aneurysms.J Neurosurg.2020;132(1):6978.

  • 2

    ConcatoJ,PeduzziP,HolfordTR,FeinsteinAR.Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards analysis. I. Background, goals, and general strategy.J Clin Epidemiol.1995;48(12):14951501.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    PeduzziP,ConcatoJ,FeinsteinAR,HolfordTR.Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis.II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol.1995;48(12):15031510.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    VittinghoffE,McCullochCE.Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression.Am J Epidemiol.2007;165(6):710718.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 1

    SonobeM,YamazakiT,YonekuraM,KikuchiH.Small unruptured intracranial aneurysm verification study: SUAVe study, Japan.Stroke.2010;41(9):19691977.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    SuzukiT,TakaoH,RapakaS,et al.Rupture risk of small unruptured intracranial aneurysms in Japanese adults.Stroke.2020;51(2):641643.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    EtminanN,BrownRDJr,BeseogluK,et al.The unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: a multidisciplinary consensus.Neurology.2015;85(10):881889.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    JuvelaS.Treatment scoring of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.Stroke.2019;50(9):23442350.

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 711 626 0
Full Text Views 161 115 23
PDF Downloads 143 53 4
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
Baidu
map