M Shapiro1,2, A Shapiro3, E Raz4, T Becske5, H Riina2,6, P K Nelson4,6. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (M.S., E.R., P.K.N.) neuroangio@neuroagio.org. 2. Neurology (M.S., H.R.). 3. Department of Electrical Engineering (A.S.), Kiev Polytechnic Institute, Kiev, Ukraine. 4. From the Departments of Radiology (M.S., E.R., P.K.N.). 5. Neurointerventional Service (T.B.), Department of Neurology, University of North Carolina Rex Hospital, Raleigh, North Carolina. 6. Neurosurgery (H.R., P.K.N.), NYU School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Flow diversion is being increasingly used to treat bifurcation aneurysms. Empiric approaches have generally led to encouraging results, and a growing body of animal and ex vivo literature addresses the fate of target aneurysms and covered branches. Our prior investigations highlighted the dynamic nature of metal coverage provided by the Pipeline Embolization Device and suggested strategies for creating optimal single and multidevice constructs. We now address the geometric and hemodynamic aspects of jailing branch vessels and neighboring target aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fundamental electric and fluid dynamics principles were applied to generate equations describing the relationships between changes in flow and the degree of vessel coverage in settings of variable collateral support to the jailed territory. Given the high complexity of baseline and posttreatment fluid dynamics, in vivo, we studied a simplified hypothetic system with minimum assumptions to generate the most conservative outcomes. RESULTS: In the acute setting, Pipeline Embolization Devices modify flow in covered branches, principally dependent on the amount of coverage, the efficiency of collateral support, and intrinsic resistance of the covered parenchymal territory. Up to 30% metal coverage of any branch territory is very likely to be well-tolerated regardless of device or artery size or the availability of immediate collateral support, provided, however, that no acute thrombus forms to further reduce jailed territory perfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Basic hemodynamic principles support the safety of branch coverage during aneurysm treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device. Rational strategies to build bifurcation constructs are feasible.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Flow diversion is being increasingly used to treat bifurcation aneurysms. Empiric approaches have generally led to encouraging results, and a growing body of animal and ex vivo literature addresses the fate of target aneurysms and covered branches. Our prior investigations highlighted the dynamic nature of metal coverage provided by the Pipeline Embolization Device and suggested strategies for creating optimal single and multidevice constructs. We now address the geometric and hemodynamic aspects of jailing branch vessels and neighboring target aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fundamental electric and fluid dynamics principles were applied to generate equations describing the relationships between changes in flow and the degree of vessel coverage in settings of variable collateral support to the jailed territory. Given the high complexity of baseline and posttreatment fluid dynamics, in vivo, we studied a simplified hypothetic system with minimum assumptions to generate the most conservative outcomes. RESULTS: In the acute setting, Pipeline Embolization Devices modify flow in covered branches, principally dependent on the amount of coverage, the efficiency of collateral support, and intrinsic resistance of the covered parenchymal territory. Up to 30% metal coverage of any branch territory is very likely to be well-tolerated regardless of device or artery size or the availability of immediate collateral support, provided, however, that no acute thrombus forms to further reduce jailed territory perfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Basic hemodynamic principles support the safety of branch coverage during aneurysm treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device. Rational strategies to build bifurcation constructs are feasible.
Authors: Tibor Becske; David F Kallmes; Isil Saatci; Cameron G McDougall; István Szikora; Giuseppe Lanzino; Christopher J Moran; Henry H Woo; Demetrius K Lopes; Aaron L Berez; Daniel J Cher; Adnan H Siddiqui; Elad I Levy; Felipe C Albuquerque; David J Fiorella; Zsolt Berentei; Miklós Marosfoi; Saruhan H Cekirge; Peter K Nelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E Raz; M Shapiro; T Becske; D W Zumofen; O Tanweer; M B Potts; H A Riina; P K Nelson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J Caroff; H Neki; C Mihalea; F D'Argento; H Abdel Khalek; L Ikka; J Moret; L Spelle Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jildaz Caroff; Robert M King; Giovanni J Ughi; Miklos Marosfoi; Erin T Langan; Christopher Raskett; Ajit S Puri; Matthew J Gounis Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 4.654