Literature DB >> 30201581

Quantitative Assessment of In-Stent Stenosis After Pipeline Embolization Device Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms: A Single-Institution Series and Systematic Review.

Krishnan Ravindran1, Mohamed M Salem1, Alejandro Enriquez-Marulanda1, Abdulrahman Y Alturki2, Justin M Moore1, Ajith J Thomas3, Christopher S Ogilvy1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Very little is known about the incidence of in-stent stenosis after flow diverter treatment of intracranial aneurysms. We sought to evaluate the incidence and clinical significance of in-stent stenosis at angiographic follow-up after Pipeline embolization device (PED) placement using quantitative measures.
METHODS: The clinical and radiological records from all patients undergoing PED treatment of intracranial aneurysms at a major U.S. academic center from March 2013 to July 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. A modified version of the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy criteria was used to quantify the degree of stenosis on the most recent postprocedural angiogram. The percentage of stenosis was calculated as 1 - (narrowest vessel diameter/maximal midstent diameter within the artery) at the first follow-up angiogram. The PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were additionally searched from inception until April 2018 for the rates of in-stent stenosis after flow diversion.
RESULTS: A total of 155 patients (mean age, 58.3 years; 30 males) with 162 aneurysms underwent treatment with the PED at our institution. In-stent stenosis was detected in 12 patients (7.1%) at 6 months. The mean percentage of stenosis was 39.7%. All 12 patients remained asymptomatic, except for 1 who developed hemiplegia secondary to an unrelated ischemic stroke. The aneurysm occlusion rates at 6 months were comparable between the stenosis and nonstenosis cohorts (76.9% and 71.6%, respectively). Within the stenosis cohort, further follow-up angiograms after 6 months were available for 6 patients, of whom 3 (50%) had either complete resolution or improvement. Of the 43 included studies, 28 reported on the use of the PED, with 2448 patients. The mean reported rate of in-stent stenosis after PED placement was 8.8% (range, 0%-39%).
CONCLUSIONS: In-stent stenosis remains a rare complication of PED placement for intracranial aneurysms. When occurring, it appears to largely be self-limiting, with a benign clinical course.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Flow diverting stent; Intracranial aneurysm; Pipeline embolization device; Stenosis

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30201581     DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.08.225

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World Neurosurg        ISSN: 1878-8750            Impact factor:   2.104


  8 in total

1.  Pipeline Embolization device for intracranial aneurysms in a large Chinese cohort: factors related to aneurysm occlusion.

Authors:  Bin Luo; Huibin Kang; Hongqi Zhang; Tianxiao Li; Jianmin Liu; Donglei Song; Yuanli Zhao; Sheng Guan; Aisha Maimaitili; Yunyan Wang; Wenfeng Feng; Yang Wang; Jieqing Wan; Guohua Mao; Huaizhang Shi; Xinjian Yang
Journal:  Ther Adv Neurol Disord       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 6.570

2.  Comparison of Pipeline Embolization Device and Traditional Endovascular Therapeutic Approaches in Distal Cerebral Circulation Aneurysms Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Authors:  Chao Ma; Haoyu Zhu; Shikai Liang; Fei Liang; Jidian Sun; Yupeng Zhang; Chuhan Jiang
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 4.086

3.  Bifurcated Aneurysm Location Predicts In-Stent Stenosis After Neuroform-EZ Stent-Assisted Coiling for Intracranial Aneurysm.

Authors:  Wei You; Junqiang Feng; Huijian Ge; Hengwei Jin; Peng Liu; Youxiang Li; Yuhua Jiang; Xinke Liu
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 4.086

4.  Institutional experience of in-stent stenosis after pipeline flow diverter implantation: A retrospective analysis of 6 isolated cases out of 118 patients.

Authors:  Ting Wang; Seidu A Richard; He Jiao; Junrao Li; Sen Lin; Changwei Zhang; Chaohua Wang; Xiaodong Xie; Chao You
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 1.817

5.  Diversion-p64: results from an international, prospective, multicenter, single-arm post-market study to assess the safety and effectiveness of the p64 flow modulation device.

Authors:  Alain Bonafe; Marta Aguilar Perez; Hans Henkes; Pedro Lylyk; Carlos Bleise; Gregory Gascou; Stanimir Sirakov; Alexander Sirakov; Luc Stockx; Francis Turjman; Andrey Petrov; Christian Roth; Ana-Paula Narata; Xavier Barreau; Christian Loehr; Ansgar Berlis; Laurent Pierot; Marcin Miś; Tony Goddard; Andy Clifton; Joachim Klisch; Cezary Wałęsa; Massimo Dall'Olio; Laurent Spelle; Frédéric Clarencon; Sergey Yakovlev; Peter Keston; Nunzio Paolo Nuzzi; Stefanita Dima; Christina Wendl; Tine Willems; Peter Schramm
Journal:  J Neurointerv Surg       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 8.572

6.  Machine learning to predict in-stent stenosis after Pipeline embolization device placement.

Authors:  Dachao Wei; Dingwei Deng; Siming Gui; Wei You; Junqiang Feng; Xiangyu Meng; Xiheng Chen; Jian Lv; Yudi Tang; Ting Chen; Peng Liu
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-09-06       Impact factor: 4.086

7.  Utility of quantitative magnetic resonance angiography and non-invasive optimal vessel analysis for identification of complications and long-term hemodynamic changes in post-pipeline embolization patients.

Authors:  Brendan Ryu; Timothy G White; Kevin A Shah; Justin Turpin; Thomas Link; Amir R Dehdashti; Jeffrey M Katz; Karen Black; Henry H Woo
Journal:  Interv Neuroradiol       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 1.764

8.  Technical aspects of combined intrasaccular and endoluminal flow diversion.

Authors:  Timothy G White; Kevin Shah; Justin Turpin; Thomas Link; Amir R Dehdashti; Jeffrey M Katz; Henry H Woo
Journal:  Interv Neuroradiol       Date:  2020-11-29       Impact factor: 1.764

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.