| Literature DB >> 29535896 |
Maus Volker1, Mpotsaris Anastasios1, Borggrefe Jan1, Abdullayev Nuran1, Liebig Thomas2, Dorn Franziska3, Stavrinou Pantelis4, Chang De-Hua1, Kabbasch Christoph1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and rate of mid-term occlusion in aneurysms treated solely with the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) in a German tertiary care university hospital.Entities:
Keywords: Flow diverter; Incomplete occlusion; Intracranial aneurysms; Pipeline embolization device
Year: 2018 PMID: 29535896 PMCID: PMC5847888 DOI: 10.5469/neuroint.2018.13.1.32
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neurointervention ISSN: 2093-9043
Baseline, Clinical, and Angiographic Characteristics
| Sex | Age | Location | Size [mm] | Geometry | Rupture | Branch vessel involvement | Hunt & Hess | No. of implanted PED | OKM postangiography | Final OKM, angiography follow-up [day] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | f | 36 | cavernous ICA, r | 10×10 | fusiform | no | no | 0 | 2 | A3 | D, 930 |
| 2 | m | 68 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 4×5 | fusiform | no | ophthalmic artery | 0 | 3 | D | D, 183 |
| 3 | m | 76 | cavernous ICA, l | 5×6 | saccular | yes | no | 1 | 4 | B3 | D, 214 |
| 4 | f | 54 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 10×7 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 2 | C3 | D, 287 |
| 5 | f | 53 | clinoidal ICA, r | 8×8 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 2 | B3 | D, 841 |
| 6 | f | 62 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 3×2 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 2 | D | D, 766 |
| 7 | f | 42 | PCA, l | 5×4 | dissecting | yes | no | 4 | 3 | D | - |
| 8 | m | 48 | VA, r | 8×4 | dissecting | yes | no | 5 | 3 | D | - |
| 9 | f | 41 | cavernous ICA, l | 15×8 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 3 | C2 | D, 180 |
| 10 | f | 47 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 7×7 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 3 | D | D, 361 |
| 11 | f | 57 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 4×5 | saccular | no | ophthalmic artery | 0 | 2 | B2 | D, 91 |
| 12 | f | 46 | Pcom, l | 5×7 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 2 | A3 | - |
| 13 | f | 59 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 10×5 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 3 | A3 | C3, 717 |
| 14 | m | 64 | VA, l | 3×1 | blister | yes | vertebrobasilar perforators | 5 | 3 | A2 | D, 215 |
| 15 | f | 84 | Pcom, r | 10×6 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 2 | A3 | - |
| 16 | f | 53 | VA, l | 13×11 | dissecting | yes | PICA | 3 | 3 | C3 | D, 796 |
| 17 | f | 67 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 15×13 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 2 | A3 | D, 163 |
| 18 | f | 47 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 4×2 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 2 | A1 | D, 137 |
| 19 | f | 35 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 6×5 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 2 | A3 | D, 187 |
| 20 | f | 49 | cavernous ICA, r | 27×23 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 2 | B3 | D, 200 |
| 21 | f | 67 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 7×4 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 2 | A2 | D, 183 |
| 22 | f | 58 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 3×3 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | A2 | D, 30 |
| 23 | f | 62 | Pcom, r | 4×3 | blister | yes | no | 3 | 1 | C3 | D, 474 |
| 24 | f | 56 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 15×10 | saccular | no | ophthalmic artery | 0 | 1 | A3 | D, 596 |
| f | 56 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 5×4 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | A3 | C3, 469 | |
| 25 | f | 67 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 4×3 | saccular | no | ophthalmic artery | 0 | 1 | A2 | A2, 59 |
| 26 | f | 33 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 5×4 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | A2* | C2, 222 |
| 27 | f | 56 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 4×3 | saccular | no | ophthalmic artery | 0 | 1 | B3 | B3, 245 |
| 28 | f | 50 | Acom | 2×1 | blister | yes | no | 1 | 1 | D | D, 211 |
| 29 | f | 54 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 2×2 | saccular | yes | no | 1 | 1 | A2 | A2, 161 |
| 30 | m | 67 | VA/BA junction | 2×2 | blister | yes | no | 2 | 1 | D | D, 124 |
| 31 | f | 34 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 6×4 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | A1 | D, 102 |
| 32 | m | 56 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 8×4 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | D | D, 194 |
| 33 | f | 51 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 5×4 | saccular | no | ophthalmic artery | 0 | 1 | D | D, 195 |
| 34 | f | 66 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 10×8 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | B3* | D, 175 |
| 35 | f | 65 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 13×7 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | A3 | D, 795 |
| 36 | f | 26 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 5×4 | saccular | no | ophthalmic artery | 0 | 1 | A1 | D, 993 |
| 37 | m | 46 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 6×2 | blister | yes | no | 3 | 1 | A1 | B2, 251 |
| 38 | f | 70 | MCA, l | 5×2 | saccular | no | lenticulostriate arteries | 0 | 1 | A3 | D, 865 |
| 39 | f | 53 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 4×4 | saccular | no | ophthalmic artery | 0 | 1 | B3 | D, 765 |
| 40 | f | 46 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 5×4 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | A1 | B1, 335 |
| 41 | f | 41 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 4×3 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | A3 | D, 186 |
| 42 | f | 53 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 4×3 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | A3 | C3, 177 |
| 43 | f | 37 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 3×2 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | A3 | D, 182 |
| 44 | f | 56 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 4×4 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | A2 | D, 173 |
| 45 | f | 47 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 10×6 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | A3 | D, 172 |
| 46 | f | 57 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 4×3 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | A2 | D, 186 |
| 47 | f | 45 | ophthalmic ICA, r | 4×3 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | A2* | D, 199 |
| 48 | f | 54 | ophthalmic ICA, l | 4×3 | saccular | no | no | 0 | 1 | A2 | D, 210 |
OKM, O'Kelly Marotta Scale; PED, Pipeline embolizaion device; d, days; f, female; m, male; r, right; l, left; ICA, internal carotid artery; PCA, posterior cerebral artery; VA, vertebral artery; Pcom, posterior communicating artery; Acom, anterior communicating artery; MCA, middle cerebral artery; PICA, posterior cerebellar artery
*Retreatment necessary due to aneurysm recurrence during follow-up
Fig. 1Angiogram of a 56-year-old patient (no. 44) shows a saccular supraophthalmic LICA aneurysm with a maximal sac diameter of 4 mm (A, black arrow). Immediately after PED placement (B, C) the intra-aneurysmal filling grade is still >95% (OKM A2, C, arrow). At follow-up after six months the aneurysm is completely occluded (OKM D, D).
Overview of Angiographic Outcome after PED Implantation
| Parameters | Numbers |
|---|---|
| Max. aneurysm sac diameter, mm (mean ± SD) | 7.1 (± 5.3) |
| Neck width, mm (mean ± SD) | 5.7 (± 3.7) |
| Initial result “favorable occlusion” (OKM C1-3 + D) | 13/49 (27%) |
| Initial result “complete occlusion” (OKM D) | 9/49 (18%) |
| Follow-up result “favorable occlusion” (OKM C1-3 + D) | 40/45 (89%) |
| Follow-up result “complete occlusion” (OKM D) | 36/45 (80%) |
| Follow-up interval, median days (IQR) | 200 (177–469) |
OKM, O'Kelly Marotta Scale; IQR, interquartile range
Fig. 2Recurrence of a paraophthalmic LICA aneurysm in a 53-year-old patient (no. 27) after previous coiling (black arrow) and complete occluded RMCA aneurysm after surgery (A). After PED placement (B) the final angiogram showed a partially occluded aneurysm (OKM B3, image not shown). Approximately eight months after placement no significant change of filling and stasis grades was observed (C).