W Brinjikji1, G Lanzino2, H J Cloft2, A H Siddiqui3, D F Kallmes2. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (W.B., G.L., H.J.C., D.F.K.) brinjikji.waleed@mayo.edu. 2. From the Departments of Radiology (W.B., G.L., H.J.C., D.F.K.) Neurosurgery (G.L., H.J.C., D.F.K.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Department of Neurosurgery (A.H.S.), State University of New York, Buffalo, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Spontaneous intraparenchymal hemorrhage is a dreaded complication of unknown etiology following flow-diversion treatment. Using the International Retrospective Study of the Pipeline Embolization Device registry, we studied demographic, aneurysm, and procedural characteristics associated with intraparenchymal hemorrhage following Pipeline Embolization Device treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients in the International Retrospective Study of the Pipeline Embolization Device registry with intraparenchymal hemorrhage unrelated to index aneurysm rupture post-Pipeline Embolization Device treatment. The rate of intraparenchymal hemorrhage was determined by baseline demographics, comorbidities, aneurysm characteristics, and procedural characteristics (including anticoagulation use, platelet testing, number of devices used, sheaths, catheters, and guidewires). Categoric variables were compared with χ(2) testing, and continuous variables were compared with the Student t test. RESULTS: Of 793 patients with 906 aneurysms, 20 (2.5%) had intraparenchymal hemorrhage. Fifteen intraparenchymal hemorrhages (75.0%) occurred within 30 days of treatment (median, 5 days; range, 0-150 days). Nine patients with intraparenchymal hemorrhage (45.0%) died, 10 (50.0%) had major neurologic morbidity, and 1 had minor neurologic morbidity (5.0%). Intraparenchymal hemorrhage was ipsilateral to the Pipeline Embolization Device in 16 patients (80%) and contralateral in 3 patients (15.0%). Variables associated with higher odds of intraparenchymal hemorrhage included treatment of ruptured aneurysms (OR, 4.44; 95% CI, 1.65-11.94; P = .005) and the use of ≥ 3 Pipeline Embolization Devices (OR, 4.10; 95% CI, 1.34-12.58; P = .04). The Shuttle sheath was not associated with intraparenchymal hemorrhage (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.38-2.45; P = .95). CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous intraparenchymal hemorrhage following Pipeline Embolization Device treatment is a rare-but-devastating complication, with nearly all patients having morbidity or mortality. Variables associated with intraparenchymal hemorrhage included the use of multiple Pipeline Embolization Devices and treatment of ruptured aneurysms. The Shuttle, a device that was previously thought to be associated with intraparenchymal hemorrhage, was not associated with it.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Spontaneous intraparenchymal hemorrhage is a dreaded complication of unknown etiology following flow-diversion treatment. Using the International Retrospective Study of the Pipeline Embolization Device registry, we studied demographic, aneurysm, and procedural characteristics associated with intraparenchymal hemorrhage following Pipeline Embolization Device treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients in the International Retrospective Study of the Pipeline Embolization Device registry with intraparenchymal hemorrhage unrelated to index aneurysm rupture post-Pipeline Embolization Device treatment. The rate of intraparenchymal hemorrhage was determined by baseline demographics, comorbidities, aneurysm characteristics, and procedural characteristics (including anticoagulation use, platelet testing, number of devices used, sheaths, catheters, and guidewires). Categoric variables were compared with χ(2) testing, and continuous variables were compared with the Student t test. RESULTS: Of 793 patients with 906 aneurysms, 20 (2.5%) had intraparenchymal hemorrhage. Fifteen intraparenchymal hemorrhages (75.0%) occurred within 30 days of treatment (median, 5 days; range, 0-150 days). Nine patients with intraparenchymal hemorrhage (45.0%) died, 10 (50.0%) had major neurologic morbidity, and 1 had minor neurologic morbidity (5.0%). Intraparenchymal hemorrhage was ipsilateral to the Pipeline Embolization Device in 16 patients (80%) and contralateral in 3 patients (15.0%). Variables associated with higher odds of intraparenchymal hemorrhage included treatment of ruptured aneurysms (OR, 4.44; 95% CI, 1.65-11.94; P = .005) and the use of ≥ 3 Pipeline Embolization Devices (OR, 4.10; 95% CI, 1.34-12.58; P = .04). The Shuttle sheath was not associated with intraparenchymal hemorrhage (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.38-2.45; P = .95). CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous intraparenchymal hemorrhage following Pipeline Embolization Device treatment is a rare-but-devastating complication, with nearly all patients having morbidity or mortality. Variables associated with intraparenchymal hemorrhage included the use of multiple Pipeline Embolization Devices and treatment of ruptured aneurysms. The Shuttle, a device that was previously thought to be associated with intraparenchymal hemorrhage, was not associated with it.
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: Christian Zellner; Thomas A Ports; Yerem Yeghiazarians; Andrew J Boyle Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: D F Kallmes; R Hanel; D Lopes; E Boccardi; A Bonafé; S Cekirge; D Fiorella; P Jabbour; E Levy; C McDougall; A Siddiqui; I Szikora; H Woo; F Albuquerque; H Bozorgchami; S R Dashti; J E Delgado Almandoz; M E Kelly; R Turner; B K Woodward; W Brinjikji; G Lanzino; P Lylyk Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-10-29 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Lee A Tan; Kiffon M Keigher; Stephan A Munich; Roham Moftakhar; Demetrius K Lopes Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Santhi Ganesan; Joseph Felo; Mario Saldana; Victor F Kalasinsky; Michael R Lewin-Smith; Joseph F Tomashefski Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 7.842
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: Ahmed E Hussein; Andreas Linninger; Sophia F Shakur; Fady T Charbel; Chih-Yang Hsu; Fady T Charbel; Ali Alaraj Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Yasha Kayan; Josser E Delgado Almandoz; Jennifer L Fease; Kira Tran; Anna M Milner; Jill M Scholz Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2015-11-28 Impact factor: 2.804
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: Timothy G White; Kevin Shah; Justin Turpin; Thomas Link; Amir R Dehdashti; Jeffrey M Katz; Henry H Woo Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-11-29 Impact factor: 1.764