| Literature DB >> 34066972 |
Miguel S Litao1, Jan-Karl Burkhardt2, Omar Tanweer3, Eytan Raz4, Paul Huang3, Tibor Becske5,6, Maksim Shapiro3, Howard Riina3, Peter K Nelson4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Flow diverters such as the pipeline embolization device (PED) cause hemodynamic changes of the treated vessel segment. In posterior communicating artery (PcomA), aneurysms' unique anatomic consideration have to be taken in account due to the connection between the anterior and posterior circulation. We hypothesize that in conjunction with PcomA remodeling, there will also be remodeling of the ipsilateral P1 segment of the posterior cerebral artery (PCA) after PED treatment for PcomA aneurysms.Entities:
Keywords: flow diversion; pipeline embolization; posterior communicating artery aneurysms; vessel remodeling
Year: 2021 PMID: 34066972 PMCID: PMC8162531 DOI: 10.3390/neurolint13020020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neurol Int ISSN: 2035-8385
Figure 1Illustrative case. (a–c) 5 mm posterior communicating artery aneurysm with a dominant posterior communicating artery treated with coils and one Pipeline stent showing persistent obliteration of aneurysm on 3 year follow-up as well as decrease in diameter of the dominant PcomA. (d,e) See increase in diameter of the ipsilateral (right) P1 segment of the posterior cerebral artery.
PcomA diameter and P1 diameter before and after PED treatment.
| Patient | PcomA Diameter (mm) | P1 Diameter (mm) | Number of PED Stents | Treatment | Rupture Status (R = Rupture, U = Unruptured) | Aneurysm Occlusion (O = Occluded; P = Partially Occluded) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | |||||
| 1 | 0.70 | 0 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 1 | PED | U | O |
| 2 | 2 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 2.2 | 1 | PED/coil | U | O |
| 3 | 1.60 | 2.30 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 2 | PED | U | P |
| 4 | 2.30 | 1.60 | 0.6 | 1 | 4 | PED (previously coiled) | U | O |
| 5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 2 | 2 | 1 | PED | U | P |
| 6 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2 | 3 | 2 | PED | R (3 years before PED) | P |
| 7 | 2.3 | 0.5 | 1.9 | 2 | 1 | PED | U | O |
| 8 | 1.6 | 0.82 | 1.8 | 2 | 2 | PED | U | P |
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 2 | PED | R (9 weeks before PED) | O |
| 10 | 0.9 | 0 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 1 | PED/coil | U | O |
| 11 | 1.43 | 0 | 2.21 | 2.1 | 1 | PED (previously coiled) | R (8 months before PED) | O |
| 12 | 1.4 | 1.30 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1 | PED | U | O |
| 13 | 3 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 2 | 2 | PED | U | P |
| 14 | 2 | 0 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 2 | PED (previously clipped) | R (3 years before PED) | O |
Figure 2PcomA and P1 diameters pre and post pipeline embolization.
Figure 3Change in P1 diameter in relation to P1/PcomA ratio.