BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The potential for successful treatment of intracranial aneurysms by flow diversion is gradually being recognized in the clinical setting; however, the devices currently available (stents) are not designed for flow diversion. We evaluate the long-term response of an appropriately designed flow diversion device in producing thrombotic occlusion of experimental aneurysms. METHODS: Three different configurations of an original flow diversion device were implanted across thirty elastase-induced aneurysm models in rabbits. Ten animals per device configuration were followed-up for 3 weeks (n=3), 3 months (n=3), or 6 months (n=4), and tissue explanted postsacrifice was sent for histology. The temporal variation in angiographic contrast intensity within each aneurysm was fitted with a mathematical model to quantify the alteration in local hemodynamics caused by the implanted device. A predictive index, called the washout coefficient, was constructed to estimate long-term aneurysm occlusion probabilities immediately after treatment with any flow diversion device. RESULTS: The device with a porosity of 70% and pore density of 18 pores/mm(2) performed better at occluding aneurysms than devices with 70% porosity, 12 pores/mm(2) and 65% porosity, 14 pores/mm(2). A value of the washout coefficient less than 30 predicted greater than 97% angiographic aneurysm occlusion over a period of 6 months with a sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 82%. CONCLUSIONS: The flow diversion devices effected successful and stable aneurysm occlusion. Pore density, rather than porosity, may be the critical factor modulating efficacy of such devices.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The potential for successful treatment of intracranial aneurysms by flow diversion is gradually being recognized in the clinical setting; however, the devices currently available (stents) are not designed for flow diversion. We evaluate the long-term response of an appropriately designed flow diversion device in producing thrombotic occlusion of experimental aneurysms. METHODS: Three different configurations of an original flow diversion device were implanted across thirty elastase-induced aneurysm models in rabbits. Ten animals per device configuration were followed-up for 3 weeks (n=3), 3 months (n=3), or 6 months (n=4), and tissue explanted postsacrifice was sent for histology. The temporal variation in angiographic contrast intensity within each aneurysm was fitted with a mathematical model to quantify the alteration in local hemodynamics caused by the implanted device. A predictive index, called the washout coefficient, was constructed to estimate long-term aneurysm occlusion probabilities immediately after treatment with any flow diversion device. RESULTS: The device with a porosity of 70% and pore density of 18 pores/mm(2) performed better at occluding aneurysms than devices with 70% porosity, 12 pores/mm(2) and 65% porosity, 14 pores/mm(2). A value of the washout coefficient less than 30 predicted greater than 97% angiographic aneurysm occlusion over a period of 6 months with a sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 82%. CONCLUSIONS: The flow diversion devices effected successful and stable aneurysm occlusion. Pore density, rather than porosity, may be the critical factor modulating efficacy of such devices.
Authors: Randall T Higashida; Van V Halbach; Christopher F Dowd; Louis Juravsky; Sean Meagher Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: N K de Rooij; F H H Linn; J A van der Plas; A Algra; G J E Rinkel Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2007-04-30 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Frank Ahlhelm; Christian Roth; Ralf Kaufmann; Gernot Schulte-Altedorneburg; Bernd F M Romeike; Wolfgang Reith Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2007-08-17 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: David F Kallmes; Yong Hong Ding; Daying Dai; Ramanathan Kadirvel; Debra A Lewis; Harry J Cloft Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-07-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Andrew J Molyneux; Richard S C Kerr; Ly-Mee Yu; Mike Clarke; Mary Sneade; Julia A Yarnold; Peter Sandercock Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Sep 3-9 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Z Zeng; D F Kallmes; M J Durka; Y Ding; D Lewis; R Kadirvel; A M Robertson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-01-27 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M-N Psychogios; P Schramm; J-H Buhk; A Xyda; K Gröschel; K Jung; M Knauth Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: N V Patel; M J Gounis; A K Wakhloo; N Noordhoek; J Blijd; D Babic; D Takhtani; S-K Lee; A Norbash Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-10-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J Berge; A Biondi; P Machi; H Brunel; L Pierot; J Gabrillargues; K Kadziolka; X Barreau; V Dousset; A Bonafé Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M Leonardi; L Cirillo; F Toni; M Dall'olio; C Princiotta; A Stafa; L Simonetti; R Agati Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 1.610