BACKGROUND: Pipeline embolization device (PED; Medtronic) and stent-assisted coiling (SAC) are established modalities for treatment of intracranial aneurysms. OBJECTIVE: To comparatively assess the efficacy of these techniques. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with aneurysms treated at our institution with either PED from 2013 to 2017 or SAC from 2009 to 2015. All large (>10 mm), ruptured, fusiform, anterior communicating artery, posterior circulation aneurysms, and patients with no available follow-up imaging were eliminated before running the propensity score matching (PSM). Patients were matched using nearest neighbor controlling for: age, gender, smoking, exact location, maximal diameter, and presence of multiple aneurysms. Total hospital costs for equipment and implants were calculated from procedure product and hospital billing records, and compared between the propensity-matched pairs. RESULTS: Out of 165 patients harboring 202 aneurysms; 170 (84.2%) were treated with the PED, and 32 (15.8%) were treated using SAC. PSM resulted in 23 matched pairs; with significantly longer follow up in the SAC group (mean 29.8 vs 14.1 mo; P = .0002). Complete occlusion rates were not different (82.6 vs 87%; P = .68), with no difference between the groups for modified Rankin Scale on last clinical follow-up, procedural complications or retreatment rates. Average total costs calculated from the hospital records, including equipment and implants, were not different between propensity-score matched pairs (P = .48). CONCLUSION: PED placement and SAC offer equally efficacious occlusion rates, functional outcomes, procedural complication rates, and cost profiles for small unruptured anterior circulation saccular aneurysms which do not involve the anterior communicating artery.
BACKGROUND: Pipeline embolization device (PED; Medtronic) and stent-assisted coiling (SAC) are established modalities for treatment of intracranial aneurysms. OBJECTIVE: To comparatively assess the efficacy of these techniques. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with aneurysms treated at our institution with either PED from 2013 to 2017 or SAC from 2009 to 2015. All large (>10 mm), ruptured, fusiform, anterior communicating artery, posterior circulation aneurysms, and patients with no available follow-up imaging were eliminated before running the propensity score matching (PSM). Patients were matched using nearest neighbor controlling for: age, gender, smoking, exact location, maximal diameter, and presence of multiple aneurysms. Total hospital costs for equipment and implants were calculated from procedure product and hospital billing records, and compared between the propensity-matched pairs. RESULTS: Out of 165 patients harboring 202 aneurysms; 170 (84.2%) were treated with the PED, and 32 (15.8%) were treated using SAC. PSM resulted in 23 matched pairs; with significantly longer follow up in the SAC group (mean 29.8 vs 14.1 mo; P = .0002). Complete occlusion rates were not different (82.6 vs 87%; P = .68), with no difference between the groups for modified Rankin Scale on last clinical follow-up, procedural complications or retreatment rates. Average total costs calculated from the hospital records, including equipment and implants, were not different between propensity-score matched pairs (P = .48). CONCLUSION: PED placement and SAC offer equally efficacious occlusion rates, functional outcomes, procedural complication rates, and cost profiles for small unruptured anterior circulation saccular aneurysms which do not involve the anterior communicating artery.