| Literature DB >> 31340820 |
Sergey Sindeev1, Jan Stephan Kirschke2, Sascha Prothmann3, Sergey Frolov1, Dieter Liepsch4, Philipp Berg5, Claus Zimmer2, Benjamin Friedrich6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of flow-diverters for non-saccular cerebral posterior circulation aneurysms requires complex deployment techniques and is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Therefore, further studies are required to clarify the effect of stenting on post-treatment hemodynamics in such aneurysms. In this study, we evaluated flow alterations in a treated giant fusiform aneurysm of the vertebrobasilar junction and correlated them with the clinical outcome.Entities:
Keywords: Computational fluid dynamics; Flow-diverter; Fusiform aneurysm; Intracranial aneurysm; Posterior circulation; Vertebrobasilar junction
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31340820 PMCID: PMC6657177 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-019-0699-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Fig. 1A T2-weighted MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) showing the large, partially thrombosed fusiform aneurysm of the basilar artery with mass effect and edema of the brainstem; B preinterventional DSA (digital subtraction angiography) run showing the partially thrombosed aneurysm as well as the dysplastic V4 segments of both vertebral arteries; C DSA run after placement of three flow-diverter stents in the basilar artery and right vertebral artery. Additionally the left vertebral artery was endovascularly occluded. D DSA control 1 year after the procedure shows a complete occlusion of the aneurysm with a sufficient restitution of the vessel anatomy of the treated V4 segment of the right vertebral artery
Fig. 2Giant fusiform aneurysm of the vertebrobasilar junction at different projections (at the left and at the middle); three flow-diverters deployed in series (at the right). Different colors differentiate between the devices
Fig. 3Velocity distribution at five aneurysm cross sections before and after the treatment during the systolic peak (t = 0.18 s) and diastolic end (t = 1 s)
Fig. 4Space-averaged velocity over the cross sections during the systolic peak before and after the treatment
Velocity values at five aneurysm cross sections before and after the treatment
| Cross-sectional number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum velocity (baseline) | 20.9 | 13.1 | 7.9 | 6.1 | 13.9 |
| Maximum velocity (treated) | 1.8 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 2.3 | 7.6 |
| Maximum velocity reduction, % | 91.5 | 89.8 | 83.4 | 62.3 | 44.8 |
| Space-averaged velocity at systolic peak (baseline) | 3.1 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 3.8 | 9.1 |
| Space-averaged velocity at systolic peak (treated) | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 3.9 |
| Space-averaged velocity reduction at systolic peak, % | 90.2 | 84 | 72.3 | 59.8 | 55.9 |
| Space-averaged velocity at diastolic end (baseline) | 1.6 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.6 | 5.0 |
| Space-averaged velocity at diastolic end (treated) | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 1.6 |
| Space-averaged velocity reduction at diastolic end, % | 91.9 | 92.2 | 86.2 | 76.7 | 67.9 |
All velocities are in cm/s
Fig. 5Space-averaged intra-aneurysmal velocity during the cardiac cycle before and after stenting
Fig. 6Intra-aneurysmal flow structure illustrated by streamlines before (first row) and after the telescopic stenting (second row) at five time points: t = 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 s
Fig. 7Distribution of hemodynamic parameters before and after the treatment in the fusiform aneurysm of the vertebrobasilar junction