INTRODUCTION: This study assessed the safety and effectiveness of the Pipeline embolization device (PED) for persistent and recurrent aneurysms previously treated with either a vascular reconstruction device (VRD) or a flow diverter (FD). METHODS: A prospective, IRB-approved database was analyzed for patients treated with PED for aneurysms previously treated with a stent. RESULTS: Twenty procedures were performed on 18 patients, 11 with prior FD, 7 with VRD, and 2 previously treated with both. Overall, 15 aneurysms were saccular (75%), and size was 13.5 ± 7.6 mm. Location was internal carotid artery (ICA) in 14 cases (70%) and posterior circulation in 6 cases (30%). Average prior treatments were 1.7. Previously FD cases were re-treated at an average of 18.1 months from most recent treatment. Each case used 1 device, 82% with distal coverage and 82% with proximal coverage of prior stent. Balloon remodeling was performed in 3 cases (27%) and no in-stent thrombosis was observed. Previously VRD stent-coiled cases were re-treated at an average of 87.5 months. These cases used on average 1.9 devices, 89% with distal and 100% proximal coverage. Adjunctive coiling was performed in 1 case (11%), balloon remodeling in 5 cases (56%), and 2 cases (28%) developed thrombosis that resolved with abciximab. Re-VRD cases were longer (59.1 vs. 33.7 min, p = 0.02) than re-FD. Angiographic follow-up was available for 16 cases (80%). In re-FD, occlusion was complete in 56% and partial progressive in 33% at 17.1 months digital subtraction angiography. In re-VRD, occlusion was complete in 57% and partial progressive in 27% at 8.1 months. Two complications occurred (10%), including one asymptomatic cervical ICA occlusion and one stent occlusion with associated mortality (5%). Clinical follow-up was 17.8 months on average (range 0.5-51.9). CONCLUSIONS: Salvage flow diversion for previously stented aneurysms is technically challenging but offers good prospects of aneurysm obliteration with acceptable complication rates.
INTRODUCTION: This study assessed the safety and effectiveness of the Pipeline embolization device (PED) for persistent and recurrent aneurysms previously treated with either a vascular reconstruction device (VRD) or a flow diverter (FD). METHODS: A prospective, IRB-approved database was analyzed for patients treated with PED for aneurysms previously treated with a stent. RESULTS: Twenty procedures were performed on 18 patients, 11 with prior FD, 7 with VRD, and 2 previously treated with both. Overall, 15 aneurysms were saccular (75%), and size was 13.5 ± 7.6 mm. Location was internal carotid artery (ICA) in 14 cases (70%) and posterior circulation in 6 cases (30%). Average prior treatments were 1.7. Previously FD cases were re-treated at an average of 18.1 months from most recent treatment. Each case used 1 device, 82% with distal coverage and 82% with proximal coverage of prior stent. Balloon remodeling was performed in 3 cases (27%) and no in-stent thrombosis was observed. Previously VRD stent-coiled cases were re-treated at an average of 87.5 months. These cases used on average 1.9 devices, 89% with distal and 100% proximal coverage. Adjunctive coiling was performed in 1 case (11%), balloon remodeling in 5 cases (56%), and 2 cases (28%) developed thrombosis that resolved with abciximab. Re-VRD cases were longer (59.1 vs. 33.7 min, p = 0.02) than re-FD. Angiographic follow-up was available for 16 cases (80%). In re-FD, occlusion was complete in 56% and partial progressive in 33% at 17.1 months digital subtraction angiography. In re-VRD, occlusion was complete in 57% and partial progressive in 27% at 8.1 months. Two complications occurred (10%), including one asymptomatic cervical ICA occlusion and one stent occlusion with associated mortality (5%). Clinical follow-up was 17.8 months on average (range 0.5-51.9). CONCLUSIONS: Salvage flow diversion for previously stented aneurysms is technically challenging but offers good prospects of aneurysm obliteration with acceptable complication rates.
Authors: Li-Mei Lin; Geoffrey P Colby; Matthew T Bender; Risheng Xu; Judy Huang; Rafael J Tamargo; Alexander L Coon Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Ning Lin; Adam M Brouillard; Chandan Krishna; Maxim Mokin; Sabareesh K Natarajan; Ashish Sonig; Kenneth V Snyder; Elad I Levy; Adnan H Siddiqui Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: A H Y Chiu; A K Cheung; J D Wenderoth; L De Villiers; H Rice; C C Phatouros; T P Singh; T J Phillips; W McAuliffe Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 3.825
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: Geoffrey P Colby; Matthew T Bender; Li-Mei Lin; Narlin Beaty; Justin M Caplan; Bowen Jiang; Erick M Westbroek; Bijan Varjavand; Jessica K Campos; Judy Huang; Rafael J Tamargo; Alexander L Coon Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 5.115
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: Matthew T Bender; Geoffrey P Colby; Li-Mei Lin; Bowen Jiang; Erick M Westbroek; Risheng Xu; Jessica K Campos; Judy Huang; Rafael J Tamargo; Alexander L Coon Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 5.115
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: Han San Oh; Jin Woo Bae; Chang-Eui Hong; Kang Min Kim; Dong Hyun Yoo; Hyun-Seung Kang; Young Dae Cho Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 4.086