A Sweid1, E Atallah2, N Herial3, H Saad4, N Mouchtouris5, G Barros6, M R Gooch7, S Tjoumakaris8, H Zarzour9, D Hasan10, N Chalouhi11, R H Rosenwasser12, P Jabbour13. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: ahmad.sweid@jefferson.edu. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: elias.atallah@jefferson.edu. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: Nabeel.herial@jefferson.edu. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Arkansas Institute of Neurosciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: Nikolaos.mouchtouris@jefferson.edu. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: guillherme.barros@jefferson.edu. 7. Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: Reid.gooch@jefferson.edu. 8. Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: stavropoula.tjoumakaris@jefferson.edu. 9. Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: hekmat.zarzour@jefferson.edu. 10. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Iowa, Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA, USA. Electronic address: david-hasan@uiowa.edu. 11. Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: nohra.chalouhi@jefferson.edu. 12. Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: robert.rosenwasser@jefferson.edu. 13. Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: pascal.jabbour@jefferson.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Flow-diversion therapy (FDT) for large and complex intracranial aneurysms is effective and considered superior to primary coil embolization. Data evaluating common treatment with both FDT and coiling continues to emerge, but information on outcomes remains scarce. This study aims to examine further the efficiency and outcomes correlated with joint FDT using pipeline embolization device (PED) and coiling compared to PED-alone in treating intracranial aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comparative review and analysis of aneurysm treatment with PED in 416 subjects were conducted. Joint modality, PED, and coiling were compared to PED-alone for aneurysm occlusion, recurrence, retreatment, thromboembolic or hemorrhagic events, and functional outcome using the modified Rankin Scale. Data on patient demographics, aneurysm characteristics, clinical and angiographic follow up, were also collected. Both univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression modeling using mixed-effects were performed. RESULTS: Total of 437 aneurysms were treated using PED of which 74 were managed with both PED and coiling. Average patient-age was 56 years, the majority were men (85%), an average aneurysm size was 9 mm, and the majority were saccular aneurysms (84%). Larger aneurysm size was associated with a poor outcome in patients with unruptured aneurysms (OR = 1.06). Adjusted regression analyses revealed no differences between treatment groups in thromboembolic or hemorrhagic events, aneurysm occlusion rate, residual flow on follow up angiography, or functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of intracranial aneurysms with joint PED and coiling was safe with no increase in complications when compared to PED alone. Aneurysm occlusion rates and functional outcome with PED and coiling stays comparable to treatment with PED-alone.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Flow-diversion therapy (FDT) for large and complex intracranial aneurysms is effective and considered superior to primary coil embolization. Data evaluating common treatment with both FDT and coiling continues to emerge, but information on outcomes remains scarce. This study aims to examine further the efficiency and outcomes correlated with joint FDT using pipeline embolization device (PED) and coiling compared to PED-alone in treating intracranial aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comparative review and analysis of aneurysm treatment with PED in 416 subjects were conducted. Joint modality, PED, and coiling were compared to PED-alone for aneurysm occlusion, recurrence, retreatment, thromboembolic or hemorrhagic events, and functional outcome using the modified Rankin Scale. Data on patient demographics, aneurysm characteristics, clinical and angiographic follow up, were also collected. Both univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression modeling using mixed-effects were performed. RESULTS: Total of 437 aneurysms were treated using PED of which 74 were managed with both PED and coiling. Average patient-age was 56 years, the majority were men (85%), an average aneurysm size was 9 mm, and the majority were saccular aneurysms (84%). Larger aneurysm size was associated with a poor outcome in patients with unruptured aneurysms (OR = 1.06). Adjusted regression analyses revealed no differences between treatment groups in thromboembolic or hemorrhagic events, aneurysm occlusion rate, residual flow on follow up angiography, or functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of intracranial aneurysms with joint PED and coiling was safe with no increase in complications when compared to PED alone. Aneurysm occlusion rates and functional outcome with PED and coiling stays comparable to treatment with PED-alone.
Authors: D Atasoy; N Kandasamy; J Hart; J Lynch; S-H Yang; D Walsh; C Tolias; T C Booth Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: F Cagnazzo; P Perrini; C Dargazanli; P-H Lefevre; G Gascou; R Morganti; D di Carlo; I Derraz; C Riquelme; A Bonafe; V Costalat Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: D P O Kaiser; G Boulouis; S Soize; V Maus; S Fischer; D Lobsien; J Klisch; H Styczen; C Deuschl; N Abdullayev; C Kabbasch; A Jamous; D Behme; K Janot; G Bellanger; C Cognard; L Pierot; M Gawlitza Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 4.966