Survey of European neurosurgeons’ management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: inconsistent practice and organization

Abstract

Abstract Background The discovery of an unruptured intracranial aneurysm creates a dilemma between observation and treatment. Neurosurgeons’ routines for risk assessment and treatment decision-making are unknown. The position of evidence-based medicine in European neurosurgery is considered to be weak, high-grade guidelines do not exist and variations between institutions are probable. We aimed to explore European neurosurgeons’ management routines for newly discovered unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Methods In cooperation with the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS), we conducted an online, cross-sectional survey of 420 European neurosurgeons during Spring/Summer 2016 (1533 non-Norwegians invited through the EANS, and 16 Norwegians invited through heads of departments because of the need for additional information for a separate study). We asked about demographic variables, routines for management and risk assessment of newly discovered unruptured intracranial aneurysms and presented a case. We collected information about gross domestic product (GDP) per capita from the International Monetary Fund. Results The response rate to the invite from the EANS was 26%, with respondents from 47 countries. More than half of the respondents (n = 226 [54%]) reported that their department treated less than 25 unruptured aneurysms yearly. Forty percent said their department used aneurysm size cut-off to guide treatment decisions, with a mean size of 6 mm. Presented with a case, respondents from countries with a lower GDP per capita recommended intervention more often than respondents from higher-income countries. Vascular neurosurgeons more commonly recommended observation. Conclusion The answers to this self-reported survey indicate that many centers have a treatment volume lower than recommended by international guidelines, and that there are socioeconomic differences in care. Better documentation of treatment and outcome, for example with clinical quality registries, is needed to drive improvements of care.