The subgroup results of ruptured MCA aneurysms taken from ISAT-2 has recently been
published. This also suggested that better efficacy could be obtained with surgical
management of ruptured MCA aneurysms, with a similar number of residual aneurysms at 1
year in each group (4 surgery, 5 endovascular), but 2 rebleedings from coiled aneurysms
(one fatal) and 4 other aneurysms retreated due to growing recurrences discovered on
short-term follow-up. Although the ISAT has shown that good-grade, small, anterior
circulation aneurysms patients have better 1 year clinical outcomes after being coiled,
which was further supported by the Barrow Ruptured Aneurysm Trial (BRAT) study, there are
several reasons to suspect that those results do not apply to aneurysms located at the
MCA bifurcation. Only 14% of aneurysms in ISAT were on the MCA, likely because lesions in
this location were preferentially treated with surgery. Even after selection, the MCA
subgroup results were similar for coiling and clipping (RR: 1.01 (0.71-1.45)).
First, the number of selected MCA aneurysm patients included in ISAT was
disproportionately small (301/2143 or 14%, as compared to 38% in ISAT-2) and they were
recruited between 1994 and 2004, a time when only simple coiling was available. The
overall trial result of superior clinical outcomes at 1 year was not confirmed for MCA
aneurysms. The clinical primary endpoint of mRS >2 was reached in 39/139 clipped (28.1%,
95% CI:0.21-0.36), and 46/162 coiled patients (28.4%, 95% CI:0.22-0.36).
The suspicion that only selected MCA aneurysm patients were judged eligible for
endovascular treatment at the time of ISAT is supported by the pre-randomized BRAT study:
Of 61 patients with ruptured MCA aneurysms included between 2003 and 2007, 30 were
assigned clipping and 31 coiling. Twenty-one of the 31 (68%) endovascular patients were
crossed-over to the surgical arm.15 The Finnish RCT on clipping versus coiling reported
only 19 ruptured MCA aneurysms because 59 MCA aneurysm patients were excluded.
If most MCA aneurysms can now be treated endovascularly, clinical results of contemporary
technical achievements remain to be properly compared to surgical clipping. In
particular, although overall clinical results were similar at one year in ISAT-2,
rebleedings and retreatments after endovascular treatment remain worrisome.
The final argument for a new trial dedicated to MCA aneurysms has to do with the eventual
interpretation of trial results. ISAT-2 was designed to be, and can still be considered a
continuation of the original ISAT trial, with a superiority hypothesis in favor of
endovascular treatment. The results presented here suggest that this hypothesis may not
be appropriate for ruptured MCA aneurysms. Showing a result for a MCA subgroup that
differs from the overall results at the end of ISAT-2 risks being scientifically
problematic just as in the original ISAT.
Taken together, the available data and foregoing rationale are sufficient to warrant the
conduct of a separate trial of surgical clipping versus endovascular treatment for MCA
aneurysms, both ruptured and unruptured. MCAAT will provide a transparent care trial
context for clinicians to manage patients with MCA aneurysms.