N Chalouhi1, S Tjoumakaris1, J L H Phillips1, R M Starke1, D Hasan2, C Wu1, M Zanaty1, D Kung1, L F Gonzalez1, R Rosenwasser1, P Jabbour3. 1. From the Department of Neurosurgery (N.C., S.T., J.L.H.P., R.M.S., C.W., M.Z., D.K., L.F.G., R.R., P.J.), Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Neurosurgery (D.H.), University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 3. From the Department of Neurosurgery (N.C., S.T., J.L.H.P., R.M.S., C.W., M.Z., D.K., L.F.G., R.R., P.J.), Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania pascal.jabbour@jefferson.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Pipeline Embolization Device has emerged as an important treatment option for intracranial aneurysms. The number of devices needed to treat an aneurysm is uncertain and is the subject of vigorous debate. The purpose of this study was to compare rates of complications, aneurysm occlusion, and outcome in patients treated with a single-versus-multiple Pipeline Embolization Devices. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred seventy-eight patients were treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device at our institution. Patients were divided into 2 groups: a single-device group (n = 126) and a multiple-device group (n = 52). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups with respect to baseline characteristics except for age and aneurysm size (higher with multiple Pipeline Embolization Devices). Complications occurred more frequently with multiple (15%) versus a single device (5%, P = .03). In multivariate analysis, the use of multiple devices independently predicted complications. A similar proportion of patients achieved adequate aneurysm obliteration at follow-up in the single-device (84%) and the multiple-device groups (87%, P = .8). In multivariate analysis, age and follow-up time predicted obliteration. At follow-up, a significantly higher proportion of patients treated with a single device (97%) achieved a favorable outcome compared with those treated with multiple devices (89%, P = .03). In multivariate analysis, there was a strong trend for the use of a single device to predict favorable outcomes (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with a single Pipeline Embolization Device provides similar occlusion rates with less complications and better overall outcomes. These findings suggest that a single Pipeline Embolization Device is sufficient for treatment of most intracranial aneurysms.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Pipeline Embolization Device has emerged as an important treatment option for intracranial aneurysms. The number of devices needed to treat an aneurysm is uncertain and is the subject of vigorous debate. The purpose of this study was to compare rates of complications, aneurysm occlusion, and outcome in patients treated with a single-versus-multiple Pipeline Embolization Devices. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred seventy-eight patients were treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device at our institution. Patients were divided into 2 groups: a single-device group (n = 126) and a multiple-device group (n = 52). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups with respect to baseline characteristics except for age and aneurysm size (higher with multiple Pipeline Embolization Devices). Complications occurred more frequently with multiple (15%) versus a single device (5%, P = .03). In multivariate analysis, the use of multiple devices independently predicted complications. A similar proportion of patients achieved adequate aneurysm obliteration at follow-up in the single-device (84%) and the multiple-device groups (87%, P = .8). In multivariate analysis, age and follow-up time predicted obliteration. At follow-up, a significantly higher proportion of patients treated with a single device (97%) achieved a favorable outcome compared with those treated with multiple devices (89%, P = .03). In multivariate analysis, there was a strong trend for the use of a single device to predict favorable outcomes (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with a single Pipeline Embolization Device provides similar occlusion rates with less complications and better overall outcomes. These findings suggest that a single Pipeline Embolization Device is sufficient for treatment of most intracranial aneurysms.
Authors: Nohra Chalouhi; Robert M Starke; Steven Yang; Cory D Bovenzi; Stavropoula Tjoumakaris; David Hasan; L Fernando Gonzalez; Robert Rosenwasser; Pascal Jabbour Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Nohra Chalouhi; Rohan Chitale; Robert M Starke; Pascal Jabbour; Stavropoula Tjoumakaris; Aaron S Dumont; Robert H Rosenwasser; L Fernando Gonzalez Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2013-01-23 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Nohra Chalouhi; Stavropoula Tjoumakaris; Robert M Starke; L Fernando Gonzalez; Ciro Randazzo; David Hasan; Jeffrey F McMahon; Saurabh Singhal; Lea A Moukarzel; Aaron S Dumont; Robert Rosenwasser; Pascal Jabbour Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Peter Kan; Adnan H Siddiqui; Erol Veznedaroglu; Kenneth M Liebman; Mandy J Binning; Travis M Dumont; Christopher S Ogilvy; John R Gaughen; J Mocco; Gregory J Velat; Andrew J Ringer; Babu G Welch; Michael B Horowitz; Kenneth V Snyder; L Nelson Hopkins; Elad I Levy Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: C J O'Kelly; J Spears; M Chow; J Wong; M Boulton; A Weill; R A Willinsky; M Kelly; T R Marotta Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: N Chalouhi; S Tjoumakaris; L F Gonzalez; A S Dumont; R M Starke; D Hasan; C Wu; S Singhal; L A Moukarzel; R Rosenwasser; P Jabbour Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Nohra Chalouhi; Sudhakar R Satti; Stavropoula Tjoumakaris; Aaron S Dumont; L Fernando Gonzalez; Robert Rosenwasser; Pascal Jabbour Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Muhammad Waqas; Kunal Vakharia; Andrew D Gong; Hamid H Rai; Audrey Wack; Najya Fayyaz; Kenneth V Snyder; Jason M Davies; Adnan H Siddiqui; Elad I Levy Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: T P Madaelil; J A Grossberg; B M Howard; C M Cawley; J Dion; R G Nogueira; D C Haussen; F C Tong Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: O Brina; P Bouillot; P Reymond; A S Luthman; C Santarosa; M Fahrat; K O Lovblad; P Machi; B M A Delattre; V M Pereira; M I Vargas Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Felipe Padovani Trivelato; Alexandre Cordeiro Ulhôa; Marco Tulio Rezende; Luis Henrique Castro-Afonso; Daniel Giansante Abud Journal: BMJ Case Rep Date: 2018-04-25
Authors: M S Park; C Kilburg; P Taussky; F C Albuquerque; D F Kallmes; E I Levy; P Jabbour; I Szikora; E Boccardi; R A Hanel; A Bonafé; C G McDougall Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ali Sarrami-Foroushani; Toni Lassila; Michael MacRaild; Joshua Asquith; Kit C B Roes; James V Byrne; Alejandro F Frangi Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: A Alwakeal; N A Shlobin; P Golnari; W Metcalf-Doetsch; P Nazari; S A Ansari; M C Hurley; D R Cantrell; A Shaibani; B S Jahromi; M B Potts Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 4.966