Abstract

The recent publication of the results of the international study on unruptured intracranial aneurysms highlighted a paradox: there do not seem to be enough unruptured aneurysms in the population to account for the observed incidence of subarachnoid haemorrhage. Some authors have suggested that the answer to this paradox is that most aneurysms that bleed do so shortly after formation. This would mean that the bulk of subarachnoid haemorrhages come from recently formed rather than long standing aneurysms. This paradox and proposed answer are examined. The available statistics on the incidence of subarachnoid haemorrhage, the prevalence of unruptured aneurysms, and the risk of bleeding from unruptured aneurysms are used to place a maximum on the time interval between aneurysm formation and rupture. For aneurysms less than 10 mm in diameter in persons with no history of subarachnoid haemorrhage, an estimate of less than 42 weeks was made. The null hypothesis that such aneurysms pose a constant risk with time is rejected with p <10⁻⁹. In larger aneurysms the risk seems to be constant with time.