This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Despite ongoing advances in the medical, surgical, and endovascular management of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and its complications, the short-term case fatality rate and morbidity continues to be substantial.1 In addition to optimizing acute SAH management, strategies for reducing the impact of SAH include 1) identifying and treating environmental or genetic factors that cause brain aneurysm formation or SAH and 2) defining a cost-effective aneurysm screening program for a carefully selected patient population that decreases long-term morbidity and mortality among those screened. Previously, the only means of aneurysm screening was by cerebral arteriography, a diagnostic study not without risks.2 CT angiography (CTA)3 and MRA4 now provide widely available, noninvasive highly sensitive and specific screening modalities. After aneurysm detection, management is enhanced by the availability of large, multicenter, prospective natural history data,5,6⇓ clinical trials,7 and evolving interventional options with aneurysm coiling and clipping. So methods of screening are available, as are some of the data needed to guide management after screening has detected an intracranial aneurysm. What is not clear is whether our patients benefit from screening, or on the contrary, whether routine screening may be detrimental to our patients’ long-term well being.
In this issue of Neurology, Wermer et al. report a well-constructed decision model evaluating screening vs no screening for aneurysm in the years after a ruptured aneurysm is treated.8 A Markov chain decision model9 is used, which considers the likelihood of a patient moving from one health status to another. The modeling mandates that accurate data be available regarding the likelihood of developing each of the conditions that put the patient at risk for having any outcome of interest. For aneurysm screening following initial subarachnoid hemorrhage, some of the key baseline risks or so-called “transitional probabilities” include the risk …
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
