Josser E Delgado Almandoz1, Yasha Kayan2, Andrea Tenreiro3, Adam N Wallace2, Jill M Scholz2, Jennifer L Fease2, Anna M Milner2, Maximilian Mulder4, Kyle M Uittenbogaard5, Oscar Tenreiro-Picón3. 1. Division of Neurointerventional Radiology, Neuroscience Institute, Abbott Northwestern Hospital, 800 E. 28th Street, Minneapolis, MN, 55407, USA. josser.delgado@crlmed.com. 2. Division of Neurointerventional Radiology, Neuroscience Institute, Abbott Northwestern Hospital, 800 E. 28th Street, Minneapolis, MN, 55407, USA. 3. Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, Clínica El Ávila, Caracas, Venezuela. 4. Division of Critical Care Medicine, Neuroscience Institute, Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 5. Division of Neurological Surgery, Neuroscience Institute, Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Flow diversion constitutes a pivotal advancement in endovascular intracranial aneurysm treatment, but requires development of a new skill set. The aim of this study is to determine whether outcomes after treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device improve with experience. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with intracranial aneurysms treated with Pipeline at two centers over a 4.5-year period. Baseline patient and aneurysm characteristics, complications, and angiographic outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred forty patients underwent 150 Pipeline procedures to treat 167 intracranial aneurysms during the study period, 109 women, mean age 55.4 years. One hundred twenty-six aneurysms were ICA, mean size 10.2 mm and mean neck 6.4 mm. Intra-procedural technical difficulties were higher during the first 75 procedures compared with the subsequent 75 (13.3 vs 2.7%; p = 0.03), as combined major morbidity and neurological mortality (14.7 vs 4%; p = 0.046). In multivariate regression analysis, increased operator experience with Pipeline remained an independent predictor of intra-procedural technical difficulties (p = 0.02, odds ratio (OR) 0.015, 95% CI 0.0004-0.55) and combined major morbidity and neurological mortality (p = 0.03, OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.84). At last follow-up, 123 aneurysms were completely occluded (81.5%, mean 24 months). In our cohort, age ≤ 53 years was an independent predictor of complete aneurysm occlusion at last follow-up (p = 0.001, OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.97). Five aneurysms were retreated (3.3%). CONCLUSION: The Pipeline embolization device is an effective treatment for intracranial aneurysms. The risk of intra-procedural technical difficulties and combined major morbidity and neurological mortality decreases significantly with increased operator experience in Pipeline deployment and patient management.
PURPOSE: Flow diversion constitutes a pivotal advancement in endovascular intracranial aneurysm treatment, but requires development of a new skill set. The aim of this study is to determine whether outcomes after treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device improve with experience. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with intracranial aneurysms treated with Pipeline at two centers over a 4.5-year period. Baseline patient and aneurysm characteristics, complications, and angiographic outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred forty patients underwent 150 Pipeline procedures to treat 167 intracranial aneurysms during the study period, 109 women, mean age 55.4 years. One hundred twenty-six aneurysms were ICA, mean size 10.2 mm and mean neck 6.4 mm. Intra-procedural technical difficulties were higher during the first 75 procedures compared with the subsequent 75 (13.3 vs 2.7%; p = 0.03), as combined major morbidity and neurological mortality (14.7 vs 4%; p = 0.046). In multivariate regression analysis, increased operator experience with Pipeline remained an independent predictor of intra-procedural technical difficulties (p = 0.02, odds ratio (OR) 0.015, 95% CI 0.0004-0.55) and combined major morbidity and neurological mortality (p = 0.03, OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.84). At last follow-up, 123 aneurysms were completely occluded (81.5%, mean 24 months). In our cohort, age ≤ 53 years was an independent predictor of complete aneurysm occlusion at last follow-up (p = 0.001, OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.97). Five aneurysms were retreated (3.3%). CONCLUSION: The Pipeline embolization device is an effective treatment for intracranial aneurysms. The risk of intra-procedural technical difficulties and combined major morbidity and neurological mortality decreases significantly with increased operator experience in Pipeline deployment and patient management.
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: I Szikora; Z Berentei; Z Kulcsar; M Marosfoi; Z S Vajda; W Lee; A Berez; P K Nelson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Tamer Altay; Hee I Kang; Henry H Woo; Thomas J Masaryk; Peter A Rasmussen; David J Fiorella; Shaye I Moskowitz Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2011-01-08 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: J P Cruz; C O'Kelly; M Kelly; J H Wong; W Alshaya; A Martin; J Spears; T R Marotta Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: David F Kallmes; Waleed Brinjikji; Edoardo Boccardi; Elisa Ciceri; Orlando Diaz; Rabih Tawk; Henry Woo; Pascal Jabbour; Felipe Albuquerque; Rene Chapot; Alain Bonafe; Shervin R Dashti; Josser E Delgado Almandoz; Curtis Given; Michael E Kelly; DeWitte T Cross; Gary Duckwiler; Nasser Razack; Ciaran J Powers; Sebastian Fischer; Demetrius Lopes; Mark R Harrigan; Daniel Huddle; Raymond Turner; Osama O Zaidat; Luc Defreyne; Vitor Mendes Pereira; Saruhan Cekirge; David Fiorella; Ricardo A Hanel; Pedro Lylyk; Cameron McDougall; Adnan Siddiqui; Istvan Szikora; Elad Levy Journal: Interv Neurol Date: 2016-05-26
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