Narlin B Beaty1, Jessica K Campos1, Geoffrey P Colby2, Li-Mei Lin3, Matthew T Bender1, Risheng Xu1, Alexander L Coon1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, UC Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An estimated 0.1% of the population harbors brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). Diagnosis and workup of AVMs include thorough evaluation for characterization of AVM angioarchitecture and careful assessment for concomitant aneurysms. The presence of coexisting aneurysms is associated with an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage, with a published risk of 7% per year compared to patients with AVMs alone with a risk of 3%. Comprehensive AVM management requires recognition of concomitant aneurysms and prioritizes treatment strategies to mitigate the aggregate risk of intracranial hemorrhage associated with AVM rupture in patients with coexisting aneurysms. Endovascular treatment of these flow-related aneurysms can offer a cure, while avoiding open surgery. Successful flow-diverting embolization techniques, efficacy, and outcomes have been previously described for a variety of aneurysm types and locations. However, use of a flow diverter has not been previously described for the treatment of high-flow aneurysms on AVM-feeding vessels. CASE PRESENTATION: We report 2 cases of large AVMs within eloquent cortex associated with flow-related aneurysms in patients presenting initially with suspected intracerebral hemorrhage secondary to AVM rupture. DISCUSSION: No consensus currently exists to guide treatment of intracranial aneurysms associated with AVMs. Surgical management addressed AVM embolization initially, as the vasculopathology with the highest rupture risk. Subsequently, Pipeline embolization of the associated aneurysms with adequate antiplatelet treatment was performed before scheduled radiosurgery to decrease the risk of AVM rupture or rebleed. This represents a novel and promising use of the Pipeline Embolization Device. Additional cases and longer follow-up will be needed to further assess the efficacy of this technique.
BACKGROUND: An estimated 0.1% of the population harbors brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). Diagnosis and workup of AVMs include thorough evaluation for characterization of AVM angioarchitecture and careful assessment for concomitant aneurysms. The presence of coexisting aneurysms is associated with an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage, with a published risk of 7% per year compared to patients with AVMs alone with a risk of 3%. Comprehensive AVM management requires recognition of concomitant aneurysms and prioritizes treatment strategies to mitigate the aggregate risk of intracranial hemorrhage associated with AVM rupture in patients with coexisting aneurysms. Endovascular treatment of these flow-related aneurysms can offer a cure, while avoiding open surgery. Successful flow-diverting embolization techniques, efficacy, and outcomes have been previously described for a variety of aneurysm types and locations. However, use of a flow diverter has not been previously described for the treatment of high-flow aneurysms on AVM-feeding vessels. CASE PRESENTATION: We report 2 cases of large AVMs within eloquent cortex associated with flow-related aneurysms in patients presenting initially with suspected intracerebral hemorrhage secondary to AVM rupture. DISCUSSION: No consensus currently exists to guide treatment of intracranial aneurysms associated with AVMs. Surgical management addressed AVM embolization initially, as the vasculopathology with the highest rupture risk. Subsequently, Pipeline embolization of the associated aneurysms with adequate antiplatelet treatment was performed before scheduled radiosurgery to decrease the risk of AVM rupture or rebleed. This represents a novel and promising use of the Pipeline Embolization Device. Additional cases and longer follow-up will be needed to further assess the efficacy of this technique.
Authors: Tibor Becske; Waleed Brinjikji; Matthew B Potts; David F Kallmes; Maksim Shapiro; Christopher J Moran; Elad I Levy; Cameron G McDougall; István Szikora; Giuseppe Lanzino; Henry H Woo; Demetrius K Lopes; Adnan H Siddiqui; Felipe C Albuquerque; David J Fiorella; Isil Saatci; Saruhan H Cekirge; Aaron L Berez; Daniel J Cher; Zsolt Berentei; Miklós Marosfoi; Peter K Nelson Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Marian C Neidert; Michael T Lawton; Marius Mader; Burkhardt Seifert; Antonios Valavanis; Luca Regli; Oliver Bozinov; Jan-Karl Burkhardt Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Adib A Abla; Jeffrey Nelson; W Caleb Rutledge; William L Young; Helen Kim; Michael T Lawton Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: C Stapf; J P Mohr; J Pile-Spellman; R R Sciacca; A Hartmann; H C Schumacher; H Mast Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Robert W V Flynn; Thomas M MacDonald; Gordon D Murray; Ronald S MacWalter; Alexander S F Doney Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-10-14 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Marta Pasquini; Andreas Charidimou; Charlotte J J van Asch; Merih I Baharoglu; Neshika Samarasekera; David J Werring; Catharina J M Klijn; Yvo B Roos; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Charlotte Cordonnier Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 7.914