Stent-assisted coiling of bifurcation aneurysms may improve endovascular treatment: a critical evaluation in an experimental model.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular treatment of wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms often results in incomplete occlusion or aneurysm recurrence. The goals of this study were to compare results of coil embolization with or without the assistance of self-expandable stents and to examine how stents may influence neointima formation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms were constructed in 24 animals and, after 4-6 weeks, were randomly allocated to 1 of 5 groups: 1) coil embolization using the assistance of 1 braided stent (n = 5); 2) coil embolization using the assistance of 2 braided stents in a Y configuration (n = 5); 3) coil embolization without stent assistance (n = 6); 4) Y-stenting alone (n = 4); and 5) untreated controls (n = 4). Angiographic results were compared at baseline and at 12 weeks, by using an ordinal scale. Neointima formation at the neck at 12 weeks was compared among groups by using a semiquantitative grading scale. Bench studies were performed to assess stent porosities. RESULTS: Initial angiographic results were improved with single stent-assisted coiling compared with simple coiling (P = .013). Angiographic results at 12 weeks were improved with any stent assistance (P = .014). Neointimal closure of the aneurysm neck was similar with or without stent assistance (P = .908), with neointima covering coil loops but rarely stent struts. Y-stent placement alone had no therapeutic effect. Bench studies showed that porosities can be decreased with stent compaction, but a relatively stable porous transition zone was a limiting factor. CONCLUSIONS: Stent-assisted coiling may improve results of embolization by allowing more complete initial coiling, but these high-porosity stents did not provide a scaffold for more complete neointimal closure of aneurysms.

Legitimacy and Accountability of Independent Regulatory Agencies: A Critical Review

This article reviews the literature that deals with the problem of legitimizing regulatory governance, with a special attention to the question of the accountability of independent regulatory agencies. The discussion begins with the presentation of the traditional arguments concerning the democratic deficit of the regulatory state. The positive evaluation of regulatory performance by citizens is presented as an alternative source of legitimacy. It follows the discussion of the existing approaches to make agencies accountable, so as to ensure the procedural legitimacy of regulatory governance. Some insights concerning new forms of accountability are offered in the last section, namely with reference to the establishment and ongoing consolidation of formal and informal networks of regulators.