E Nossek1, D J Chalif1, S Chakraborty1, A Setton2. 1. From the Department of Neurosurgery, Hofstra North Shore-Long Island Jewish School of Medicine and North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Manhasset, New York. 2. From the Department of Neurosurgery, Hofstra North Shore-Long Island Jewish School of Medicine and North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Manhasset, New York. asetton@nshs.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Utility of the Pipeline Embolization Device extending to the M1 and its clinical and flow consequences at the ICA bifurcation have not been characterized. We analyzed flow modification in cases where a single Pipeline Embolization Device was deployed from the M1 to the distal supraclinoid ICA, covering the A1, for aneurysm treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A1 flow modifications and size regression in postprocedure and follow-up angiography were analyzed. Vessel diameters and ratios of the proximal A1 and M1 segments and the distal ICA were assessed. Relationships between Pipeline Embolization Device nominal diameter and the vessel diameters at landing zones were obtained. Clinical assessments after flow modification were documented. RESULTS: Six of 7 patients demonstrated no change of flow in the anterior cerebral artery/anterior communicating artery complex at immediate postembolization angiography. All patients who underwent follow-up angiography demonstrated size regression of the ipsilateral A1. Midterm follow-up angiography revealed complete reversal of flow in the ipsilateral A1 in 4 of 5 patients. One patient did not demonstrate flow modification. This patient had a dominant ipsilateral A1. Vessel ratios in this case demonstrated a unique configuration in favor of maintaining patency of the ipsilateral A1. There were no clinical or radiographic signs of ischemia. One patient experienced asymptomatic angiographic in-stent stenosis at the M1. CONCLUSIONS: We found that deployment of a Pipeline Embolization Device from the distal supraclinoid ICA to the M1 may result in reversal of flow in the anterior cerebral artery/anterior communicating artery complex and regression of the ipsilateral A1. Preoperative anatomic quantitation and sizing of the Pipeline Embolization Device may predict flow modification results.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Utility of the Pipeline Embolization Device extending to the M1 and its clinical and flow consequences at the ICA bifurcation have not been characterized. We analyzed flow modification in cases where a single Pipeline Embolization Device was deployed from the M1 to the distal supraclinoid ICA, covering the A1, for aneurysm treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A1 flow modifications and size regression in postprocedure and follow-up angiography were analyzed. Vessel diameters and ratios of the proximal A1 and M1 segments and the distal ICA were assessed. Relationships between Pipeline Embolization Device nominal diameter and the vessel diameters at landing zones were obtained. Clinical assessments after flow modification were documented. RESULTS: Six of 7 patients demonstrated no change of flow in the anterior cerebral artery/anterior communicating artery complex at immediate postembolization angiography. All patients who underwent follow-up angiography demonstrated size regression of the ipsilateral A1. Midterm follow-up angiography revealed complete reversal of flow in the ipsilateral A1 in 4 of 5 patients. One patient did not demonstrate flow modification. This patient had a dominant ipsilateral A1. Vessel ratios in this case demonstrated a unique configuration in favor of maintaining patency of the ipsilateral A1. There were no clinical or radiographic signs of ischemia. One patient experienced asymptomatic angiographic in-stent stenosis at the M1. CONCLUSIONS: We found that deployment of a Pipeline Embolization Device from the distal supraclinoid ICA to the M1 may result in reversal of flow in the anterior cerebral artery/anterior communicating artery complex and regression of the ipsilateral A1. Preoperative anatomic quantitation and sizing of the Pipeline Embolization Device may predict flow modification results.
Authors: Tibor Becske; David F Kallmes; Isil Saatci; Cameron G McDougall; István Szikora; Giuseppe Lanzino; Christopher J Moran; Henry H Woo; Demetrius K Lopes; Aaron L Berez; Daniel J Cher; Adnan H Siddiqui; Elad I Levy; Felipe C Albuquerque; David J Fiorella; Zsolt Berentei; Miklós Marosfoi; Saruhan H Cekirge; Peter K Nelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Francesco Briganti; Manuela Napoli; Fabio Tortora; Domenico Solari; Mauro Bergui; Edoardo Boccardi; Enrico Cagliari; Lucio Castellan; Francesco Causin; Elisa Ciceri; Luigi Cirillo; Roberto De Blasi; Luigi Delehaye; Francesco Di Paola; Andrea Fontana; Roberto Gasparotti; Giulio Guidetti; Ignazio Divenuto; Giuseppe Iannucci; Maurizio Isalberti; Marco Leonardi; Fernando Lupo; Salvatore Mangiafico; Andrea Manto; Roberto Menozzi; Mario Muto; Nunzio Paolo Nuzzi; Rosario Papa; Benedetto Petralia; Mariangela Piano; Maurizio Resta; Riccardo Padolecchia; Andrea Saletti; Giovanni Sirabella; Luca Piero Valvassori Bolgè Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Mehdi Abbasi; Luis E Savasatano; Waleed Brinjikji; Kevin M Kallmes; Nick Mikoff; Natalie Reierson; Mohamed Abdelmegeed; John Pederson; Beth Warren; Jillienne C Touchette; Sarah Khan; Shelby Kamrowski; Averi Barrett; David F Kallmes; Ramanathan Kadirvel Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 1.764
Authors: Stefan Schob; Richard Brill; Eberhard Siebert; Massimo Sponza; Marie-Sophie Schüngel; Walter Alexander Wohlgemuth; Nico Götz; Dirk Mucha; Anil Gopinathan; Maximilian Scheer; Julian Prell; Georg Bohner; Vladimir Gavrilovic; Martin Skalej Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 4.003