BACKGROUND: Flow diverters have been used predominantly for large anterior circulation aneurysms. Data on the safety and efficacy of this treatment for posterior circulation aneurysms are limited. OBJECTIVE: To present our posterior circulation flow diverter experience, outcomes and morbidity in comparison with recent studies. METHODS: A retrospective chart and imaging review of six patients with seven aneurysms in posterior circulation vessels, treated with flow diverter technology was carried out. A literature review was performed using standard online search tools. RESULTS: We included five saccular and two fusiform posterior circulation aneurysms. An average of two flow diverters was placed for each patient. Adjunctive coiling was used in three cases. Follow-up at an average of 14.5 months showed complete angiographic occlusion in 4 (57.1%) cases, including one patient with in-stent thrombosis and major brainstem stroke at 4.5 months, a week after self-discontinuing dual antiplatelet therapy. Two other patients developed small periprocedural strokes but had excellent recovery. One death occurred 18 months after the initial procedure. No aneurysm rupture or parenchymal hemorrhage was seen. Overall, 5 (71%) cases, all with saccular aneurysms, had good clinical outcome (modified Rankin score (mRS) 0-1). Fusiform basilar aneurysms had markedly worse outcomes (mRS 5 and 6). Our literature review yielded six other studies with 100 additional patients. Overall, good outcome was seen in 74.3%, with a 12.3% average mortality and 11% permanent neurologic deficit rate. Complete occlusion varied from 43% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Flow diversion may be a possible treatment in carefully selected patients with high-risk atypical posterior circulation aneurysms, with poor natural history and no optimal treatment strategy. Symptomatic and fusiform large aneurysms appear to carry the highest risk. Further studies are necessary to assess the role of flow diversion in the posterior circulation. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Flow diverters have been used predominantly for large anterior circulation aneurysms. Data on the safety and efficacy of this treatment for posterior circulation aneurysms are limited. OBJECTIVE: To present our posterior circulation flow diverter experience, outcomes and morbidity in comparison with recent studies. METHODS: A retrospective chart and imaging review of six patients with seven aneurysms in posterior circulation vessels, treated with flow diverter technology was carried out. A literature review was performed using standard online search tools. RESULTS: We included five saccular and two fusiform posterior circulation aneurysms. An average of two flow diverters was placed for each patient. Adjunctive coiling was used in three cases. Follow-up at an average of 14.5 months showed complete angiographic occlusion in 4 (57.1%) cases, including one patient with in-stent thrombosis and major brainstem stroke at 4.5 months, a week after self-discontinuing dual antiplatelet therapy. Two other patients developed small periprocedural strokes but had excellent recovery. One death occurred 18 months after the initial procedure. No aneurysm rupture or parenchymal hemorrhage was seen. Overall, 5 (71%) cases, all with saccular aneurysms, had good clinical outcome (modified Rankin score (mRS) 0-1). Fusiform basilar aneurysms had markedly worse outcomes (mRS 5 and 6). Our literature review yielded six other studies with 100 additional patients. Overall, good outcome was seen in 74.3%, with a 12.3% average mortality and 11% permanent neurologic deficit rate. Complete occlusion varied from 43% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Flow diversion may be a possible treatment in carefully selected patients with high-risk atypical posterior circulation aneurysms, with poor natural history and no optimal treatment strategy. Symptomatic and fusiform large aneurysms appear to carry the highest risk. Further studies are necessary to assess the role of flow diversion in the posterior circulation. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: C A Taschner; S Vedantham; J de Vries; A Biondi; J Boogaarts; N Sakai; P Lylyk; I Szikora; S Meckel; H Urbach; P Kan; R Siekmann; J Bernardy; M J Gounis; A K Wakhloo Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Michael T Lawton; Adib A Abla; W Caleb Rutledge; Arnau Benet; Zsolt Zador; Vitaliy L Rayz; David Saloner; Van V Halbach Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 4.654