M Shapiro1, T Becske, D Sahlein, J Babb, P K Nelson. 1. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Neurointerventional Radiology Center, Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, USA. shapim06@med.nyu.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stent-supported aneurysm coiling has been utilized with increasing frequency over the past few years, particularly for addressing treatment of complex and wide-neck aneurysms. A sizable body of literature describing various experiences with stent-supported coiling now exists. The purpose of this research was to carry out a comprehensive literature survey of stent-supported aneurysm coiling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey of papers reporting results with stent-assisted aneurysm coiling through January 2011 was conducted to identify the prevalence of stent-related and other complications, occlusion rates, and clinical and angiographic follow-up data. RESULTS: Thirty-nine articles with 1517 patients met inclusion criteria for initial analysis, follow-up analysis, or both. Overall, 9% of cases were confounded by a technical stent-related issue, including 4% failure of deployment. The overall procedure complication rate was 19%, with periprocedural mortality of 2.1%. Approximately 45% of aneurysms were completely occluded at first treatment session, increasing to 61% on follow-up. Approximately 3.5% in-stent stenosis and 0.6% stent occlusion were observed at angiographic follow-up. Delayed stroke or transient ischemic attack was reported in 3% of subjects. Within a subset of articles, the incidence of stent-related issues in the first 10 patients was significantly higher than in subsequent subjects, supporting the notion of a procedural "learning curve." CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, the morbidity of stent-supported coiling is somewhat higher compared with "traditional" coiling. As might be expected, execution of the procedure appears improved with experience. Complete occlusion rates remain somewhat low. More and longer term angiographic follow-up information is needed to understand delayed stent-related issues and to better define the durability of treatment.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stent-supported aneurysm coiling has been utilized with increasing frequency over the past few years, particularly for addressing treatment of complex and wide-neck aneurysms. A sizable body of literature describing various experiences with stent-supported coiling now exists. The purpose of this research was to carry out a comprehensive literature survey of stent-supported aneurysm coiling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey of papers reporting results with stent-assisted aneurysm coiling through January 2011 was conducted to identify the prevalence of stent-related and other complications, occlusion rates, and clinical and angiographic follow-up data. RESULTS: Thirty-nine articles with 1517 patients met inclusion criteria for initial analysis, follow-up analysis, or both. Overall, 9% of cases were confounded by a technical stent-related issue, including 4% failure of deployment. The overall procedure complication rate was 19%, with periprocedural mortality of 2.1%. Approximately 45% of aneurysms were completely occluded at first treatment session, increasing to 61% on follow-up. Approximately 3.5% in-stent stenosis and 0.6% stent occlusion were observed at angiographic follow-up. Delayed stroke or transient ischemic attack was reported in 3% of subjects. Within a subset of articles, the incidence of stent-related issues in the first 10 patients was significantly higher than in subsequent subjects, supporting the notion of a procedural "learning curve." CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, the morbidity of stent-supported coiling is somewhat higher compared with "traditional" coiling. As might be expected, execution of the procedure appears improved with experience. Complete occlusion rates remain somewhat low. More and longer term angiographic follow-up information is needed to understand delayed stent-related issues and to better define the durability of treatment.
Authors: David Fiorella; Felipe C Albuquerque; Henry Woo; Peter A Rasmussen; Thomas J Masaryk; Cameron G McDougall Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Erik Friedrich Hauck; Babu Guai Welch; Jonathan Ari White; Robert Edward Replogle; Phillip Douglas Purdy; Lee Glenn Pride; Duke Samson Journal: Surg Neurol Date: 2008-04-18
Authors: Alessandra Biondi; Vallabh Janardhan; Jeffrey M Katz; Kimberly Salvaggio; Howard A Riina; Y Pierre Gobin Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: J P Cruz; M Chow; C O'Kelly; B Marotta; J Spears; W Montanera; D Fiorella; T Marotta Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M A Möhlenbruch; C Herweh; L Jestaedt; S Stampfl; S Schönenberger; P A Ringleb; M Bendszus; M Pham Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Eduardo Murias Quintana; Pedro Vega Valdes; Edison Morales Deza; Alberto Gil García; María Cadenas Rodríguez; Jose María Jiménez Pérez; Juan Chaviano; Julio Cesar Gutierrez Morales; Kelvin Piña Batista; Faustino Arias García Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: B Lubicz; J Klisch; J-Y Gauvrit; I Szikora; M Leonardi; T Liebig; N P Nuzzi; E Boccardi; F D Paola; M Holtmannspötter; W Weber; E Calgliari; V Sychra; B Mine; L Pierot Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 3.825