Francesco Briganti1, Giuseppe Leone2, Mariano Marseglia2, Giuseppe Mariniello3, Ferdinando Caranci4, Arturo Brunetti4, Francesco Maiuri3. 1. Unit of Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, "Federico II" University, Naples, Italy frabriga@unina.it. 2. Unit of Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, "Federico II" University, Naples, Italy. 3. Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, "Federico II" University, Naples, Italy. 4. Unit of Neuroradiology, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, "Federico II" University, Naples, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Flow-diverter devices (FDDs) are new-generation stents placed in the parent artery at the level of the aneurysm neck to disrupt the intra-aneurysmal flow thus favoring intra-aneurysmal thrombosis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review article is to define the indication and results of the treatment of intracranial aneurysms by FDD, reviewing 18 studies of endovascular treatment by FDDs for a total of 1704 aneurysms in 1483 patients. METHODS: The medical literature on FDDs for intracranial aneurysms was reviewed from 2009 to December 2014. The keywords used were: "intracranial aneurysms," "brain aneurysms," "flow diverter," "pipeline embolization device," "silk flow diverter," "surpass flow diverter" and "FRED flow diverter." RESULTS: The use of these stents is advisable mainly for unruptured aneurysms, particularly those located at the internal carotid artery or vertebral and basilar arteries, for fusiform and dissecting aneurysms and for saccular aneurysms with large necks and low dome-to-neck ratio. The rate of aneurysm occlusion progressively increases during follow-up (81.5% overall rate in this review). The non-negligible rate of ischemic (mean 4.1%) and hemorrhagic (mean 2.9%) complications, the neurological morbidity (mean 3.5%) and the reported mortality (mean 3.4%) are the main limits of this technique. CONCLUSION: Treatment with FDDs is a feasible and effective technique for unruptured aneurysms with complex anatomy (fusiform, dissecting, large neck, bifurcation with side branches) where coiling and clipping are difficult or impossible. Patient selection is very important to avoid complications and reduce the risk of morbidity and mortality. Further studies with longer follow-up are necessary to define the rate of complete occlusion.
BACKGROUND: Flow-diverter devices (FDDs) are new-generation stents placed in the parent artery at the level of the aneurysm neck to disrupt the intra-aneurysmal flow thus favoring intra-aneurysmal thrombosis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review article is to define the indication and results of the treatment of intracranial aneurysms by FDD, reviewing 18 studies of endovascular treatment by FDDs for a total of 1704 aneurysms in 1483 patients. METHODS: The medical literature on FDDs for intracranial aneurysms was reviewed from 2009 to December 2014. The keywords used were: "intracranial aneurysms," "brain aneurysms," "flow diverter," "pipeline embolization device," "silk flow diverter," "surpass flow diverter" and "FRED flow diverter." RESULTS: The use of these stents is advisable mainly for unruptured aneurysms, particularly those located at the internal carotid artery or vertebral and basilar arteries, for fusiform and dissecting aneurysms and for saccular aneurysms with large necks and low dome-to-neck ratio. The rate of aneurysm occlusion progressively increases during follow-up (81.5% overall rate in this review). The non-negligible rate of ischemic (mean 4.1%) and hemorrhagic (mean 2.9%) complications, the neurological morbidity (mean 3.5%) and the reported mortality (mean 3.4%) are the main limits of this technique. CONCLUSION: Treatment with FDDs is a feasible and effective technique for unruptured aneurysms with complex anatomy (fusiform, dissecting, large neck, bifurcation with side branches) where coiling and clipping are difficult or impossible. Patient selection is very important to avoid complications and reduce the risk of morbidity and mortality. Further studies with longer follow-up are necessary to define the rate of complete occlusion.
Authors: M de Barros Faria; R Nella Castro; J Lundquist; E Scrivano; R Ceratto; A Ferrario; P Lylyk Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Zsolt Kulcsár; Ulrike Ernemann; Stephan G Wetzel; Alexander Bock; Sophia Goericke; Vasilis Panagiotopoulos; Michael Forsting; Daniel A Ruefenacht; Isabel Wanke Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Geoffrey P Colby; Li-Mei Lin; Juan F Gomez; Alexandra R Paul; Judy Huang; Rafael J Tamargo; Alexander L Coon Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2012-03-29 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Andrew J Molyneux; Richard S C Kerr; Ly-Mee Yu; Mike Clarke; Mary Sneade; Julia A Yarnold; Peter Sandercock Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Sep 3-9 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: W Brinjikji; G Lanzino; H J Cloft; A H Siddiqui; E Boccardi; S Cekirge; D Fiorella; R Hanel; P Jabbour; E Levy; D Lopes; P Lylyk; I Szikora; D F Kallmes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: H Oishi; T Fujii; M Suzuki; N Takano; K Teranishi; K Yatomi; T Kitamura; M Yamamoto; S Aoki; H Arai Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Robert Fahed; Tim E Darsaut; Jean-Christophe Gentric; Behzad Farzin; Igor Salazkin; Guylaine Gevry; Jean Raymond Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: H Luecking; T Engelhorn; S Lang; P Goelitz; S Kloska; K Roessler; A Doerfler Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-01-19 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