B Daou1, R M Starke2, N Chalouhi1, S Tjoumakaris1, D Hasan3, J Khoury1, R H Rosenwasser1, P Jabbour4. 1. From the Department of Neurosurgery (B.D., N.C., S.T., J.K., R.H.R., P.J.), Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Neurological Surgery (R.M.S.), University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia. 3. Department of Neurosurgery (D.H.), University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 4. From the Department of Neurosurgery (B.D., N.C., S.T., J.K., R.H.R., P.J.), Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania pascal.jabbour@jefferson.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The use of the Pipeline Embolization Device in the management of recurrent previously stented cerebral aneurysms is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Pipeline Embolization Device in the treatment of recurrent, previously stented aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients with previously stented recurrent aneurysms who later underwent Pipeline Embolization Device placement (group 1) were retrospectively identified and compared with 63 patients who had treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device with no prior stent placement (group 2). Occlusion at the latest follow-up angiogram, recurrence and retreatment rates, clinical outcome, complications, and morbidity and mortality observed after treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device were analyzed. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. The mean time from stent placement to recurrence was 25 months. Pipeline Embolization Device treatment resulted in complete aneurysm occlusion in 55.6% of patients in group 1 versus 80.4% of patients in group 2 (P = .036). The retreatment rate in group 1 was 11.1% versus 7.1% in group 2 (P = .62). The rate of good clinical outcome at the latest follow-up in group 1 was 81% versus 93.2% in group 2 (P = .1). Complications were observed in 14.3% of patients in group 1 and 9.5% of patients in group 2 (P = .684). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Pipeline Embolization Device in the management of previously stented aneurysms is less effective than the use of this device in nonstented aneurysms. Prior stent placement can worsen the safety and efficacy profile of this device.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The use of the Pipeline Embolization Device in the management of recurrent previously stented cerebral aneurysms is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Pipeline Embolization Device in the treatment of recurrent, previously stented aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients with previously stented recurrent aneurysms who later underwent Pipeline Embolization Device placement (group 1) were retrospectively identified and compared with 63 patients who had treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device with no prior stent placement (group 2). Occlusion at the latest follow-up angiogram, recurrence and retreatment rates, clinical outcome, complications, and morbidity and mortality observed after treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device were analyzed. RESULTS:Patient characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. The mean time from stent placement to recurrence was 25 months. Pipeline Embolization Device treatment resulted in complete aneurysm occlusion in 55.6% of patients in group 1 versus 80.4% of patients in group 2 (P = .036). The retreatment rate in group 1 was 11.1% versus 7.1% in group 2 (P = .62). The rate of good clinical outcome at the latest follow-up in group 1 was 81% versus 93.2% in group 2 (P = .1). Complications were observed in 14.3% of patients in group 1 and 9.5% of patients in group 2 (P = .684). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Pipeline Embolization Device in the management of previously stented aneurysms is less effective than the use of this device in nonstented aneurysms. Prior stent placement can worsen the safety and efficacy profile of this device.
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: Alejandro Santillan; Edward Greenberg; Athos Patsalides; Kimberly Salvaggio; Howard A Riina; Y Pierre Gobin Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Jean Raymond; François Guilbert; Alain Weill; Stavros A Georganos; Louis Juravsky; Anick Lambert; Julie Lamoureux; Miguel Chagnon; Daniel Roy Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-05-29 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: K Y Park; J Y Yeon; B M Kim; P Jeon; J-H Kim; C K Jang; D J Kim; J W Lee; Y B Kim; J Chung; D H Song; H G Park; J S Park Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Justin R Mascitelli; Daniel Wei; Thomas J Oxley; Christopher P Kellner; Hazem Shoirah; Reade A De Leacy; J Mocco; Johanna T Fifi Journal: BMJ Case Rep Date: 2016-11-15
Authors: Matthew T Bender; Chau D Vo; Bowen Jiang; Jessica K Campos; David A Zarrin; Risheng Xu; Erick M Westbroek; Justin M Caplan; Judy Huang; Rafael J Tamargo; Li-Mei Lin; Geoffrey P Colby; Alexander L Coon Journal: Interv Neurol Date: 2018-06-01
Authors: Muhammad Waqas; Kunal Vakharia; Rimal H Dossani; Gary B Rajah; Michael K Tso; Andrew D Gong; Kyungduk Rho; Hamid H Rai; Kenneth V Snyder; Elad I Levy; Adnan H Siddiqui; Jason M Davies Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-07-05 Impact factor: 1.610