Dataset Information

Treatment of cavernous sinus aneurysms with flow diversion: results in 44 patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Aneurysms of the cavernous segment of the ICA are difficult to treat with standard endovascular techniques, and ICA sacrifice achieves a high rate of occlusion but carries an elevated level of surgical complications and risk of de novo aneurysm formation. We report rates of occlusion and treatment-related data in 44 patients with cavernous sinus aneurysms treated with flow diversion.

Materials and methods

Patients with cavernous segment aneurysms treated with flow diversion were selected from a prospectively maintained data base of patients from 2009 to the present. Demographic information, treatment indications, number/type of flow diverters placed, outcome, complications (technical or clinical), and clinical/imaging follow-up data were analyzed.

Results

We identified 44 patients (37 females, 7 males) who had a flow diverter placed for treatment of a cavernous ICA aneurysm (mean age, 57.2; mean aneurysm size, 20.9 mm). The mean number of devices placed per patient was 2.2. At final angiographic follow-up (mean, 10.9 months), 71% had complete occlusion, and of those with incomplete occlusion, 40% had minimal remnants (<3 mm). In symptomatic patients, complete resolution or significant improvement in symptoms was noted in 90% at follow-up. Technical complications (which included, among others, vessel perforation in 4 patients, groin hematoma in 2, and asymptomatic carotid occlusion in 1) occurred in approximately 36% of patients but did not result in any clinical sequelae immediately or at follow-up.

Conclusions

Our series of flow-diversion treatments achieved markedly greater rates of complete occlusion than coiling, with a safety profile that compares favorably with that of carotid sacrifice.

SUBMITTER: Puffer RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7964557 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposeFlow diversion is a recent endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms. We compared the safety and efficacy of flow diversion with the alternative standard management options.Materials and methodsA parallel group, prerandomized, controlled, open-label pragmatic trial was conducted in 3 Canadian centers. The trial included all patients considered for flow diversion. A Web-based platform 1:1 randomly allocated patients to flow diversion or 1 of 4 alternative standard management options (coiling with/without stent placement, parent vessel occlusion, surgical clipping, or observation) as prespecified by clinical judgment. Patients ineligible for alternative standard management options were treated with flow diversion in a registry. The primary safety outcome was death or dependency (mRS > 2) at 3 months. The composite primary efficacy outcome included the core lab-determined angiographic presence of a residual aneurysm, aneurysm rupture, progressive mass effect during follow-up, or death or dependency (mRS > 2) at 3-12 months.ResultsBetween May 2011 and November 2020, three hundred twenty-three patients were recruited: Two hundred seventy-eight patients (86%) had treatment randomly allocated (139 to flow diversion and 139 to alternative standard management options), and 45 (14%) received flow diversion in the registry. Patients in the randomized trial frequently had unruptured (83%), large (52% ≥10 mm) carotid (64%) aneurysms. Death or dependency at 3 months occurred in 16/138 patients who underwent flow diversion and 12/137 patients receiving alternative standard management options (relative risk, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.65-2.69; P = .439). A poor primary efficacy outcome was found in 30.9% (43/139) with flow diversion and 45.6% (62/136) of patients receiving alternative standard management options, with an absolute risk difference of 14.7% (95% CI, 3.3%-26.0%; relative risk, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.92; P = .014).ConclusionsFor patients with mostly unruptured, large, anterior circulation (carotid) aneurysms, flow diversion was more effective than the alternative standard management option in terms of angiographic outcome.

Project description:Background and purposeAlthough grading scales for angiography outcomes following cerebral aneurysm treatment with flow diversion have been published, physicians have not widely adopted these scales in practice. The aim of this study is to propose and validate a novel Flow diversion Predictive Score (4F-FPS) grading scale based on previously established scales that is simple and reliable.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent endovascular treatment for cerebral aneurysms with flow diversion between January 2014 and September 2019. The included patients were randomly divided into the derivation and validation group in a 70/30 ratio, respectively. Aneurysms were classified as incomplete or complete occlusion based on final angiography outcomes. 4F-FPS was derived to predict aneurysm occlusion from multivariate logistic regression analyses in the derivation group and validated with previously published grading scales in the validation group.ResultsOverall, 662 patients [mean age, 53.8 years; 72.5% (480/662) female] with 662 aneurysms treated with the PipelineTM flow diverter were included [69.9% (463/662) derivation group, 30.1% (199/662) validation group]. The incidence of aneurysm occlusion was 82.7%. 4F-FPS demonstrated significant discrimination in 10-fold cross validation [mean receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area, 0.862 ± 0.055] and calibration (Cox & Snell R 2, 0.251; Nagelkerke R 2, 0.413) in the derivation group. The ROC area of 4F-FPS score in both the derivation and validation groups is the largest compared with previously published grading scales/scores (p < 0.05), which shows better sensitivity and specificity. The 4F-FPS score showed excellent prediction, discrimination, and calibration properties.ConclusionThe 4F-FPS score is a simple and reliable tool to predict angiography outcome after flow diversion treatment. If widely adopted, it may provide a common language to be used in future reporting of flow diversion results for clinical trials and daily practice.Clinical trial registrationhttp://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03831672.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of intracranial aneurysms is approximately 3% worldwide. Posterior circulation (PC) aneurysms have a higher risk of treatment complications than anterior circulation aneurysms. Improving the survival rate and quality of life of patients with PC aneurysms remains one of the most important issues in the field.ObjectivesFlow diverter (FD) treatment of PC aneurysms remains controversial. We aimed to investigate the effects of FD treatment and analyze differences among different application methods or aneurysm types in PC aneurysms.DesignThis is a multicenter retrospective study.MethodsPatients with PC aneurysms treated with the pipeline embolization device (PED) or Tubridge embolization device (TED) between 2015 and 2020 in five neurovascular centers were retrospectively enrolled. The primary outcomes were major perioperative complication, clinical outcome, and aneurysm occlusion rates. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to determine the risk factors of each outcome.ResultsIn total, 252 aneurysms were included. Major perioperative complication, favorable clinical outcome, and complete occlusion rates were 7.5%, 91.0%, and 79.1%, respectively. Compared with other types of aneurysms, dissecting aneurysms had the best clinical outcome and highest occlusion rate. Both clinical and angiographic outcomes were independently associated with the aneurysm location at the basilar artery. Aneurysm size was not associated with any outcome. TED had similar clinical and angiographic outcomes compared with PED but more perioperative major complications. Tandem treatment and coiling assistance may have poorer clinical outcomes but similar occlusion rates. Single- and multiple-stent treatments had similar outcomes.ConclusionFD treatment of PC aneurysms achieved favorable clinical outcomes and long-term aneurysm occlusion rates with acceptable perioperative complication rates, especially in dissecting and non-basilar artery aneurysms. There was no additional improvement in outcomes with coiling assistance, multi-stent application, or tandem treatment. Therefore, the use of PC aneurysms should be carefully considered.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of antithrombotic medication following acute flow diversion for a ruptured intracranial aneurysm (IA) is challenging with no current guidelines. We investigated the incidence of treatment-related complications and patient outcomes after flow diversion for a ruptured IA before and after the implementation of a standardized antithrombotic medication protocol.MethodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective study including consecutive patients treated for acutely ruptured IAs with flow diversion during 2015-2023. We divided the patients into two groups: those treated before the implementation of the protocol (pre-protocol) and those treated after the implementation of the protocol (post-protocol). The primary outcomes were hemorrhagic and ischemic complications. A secondary outcome was clinical outcome using the modified Ranking Scale (mRS).ResultsTotally 39 patients with 40 ruptured IAs were treated with flow diversion (69% pre-protocol, 31% post-protocol). The patient mean age was 55 years, 62% were female, 63% of aneurysms were in the posterior circulation, 92% of aneurysms were non-saccular, and 44% were in poor grade on admission. Treatment differences included the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (pre-group 48% vs. post-group 100%), and the use of early dual antiplatelets (pre-group 44% vs. 92% post-group). The incidence of ischemic complications was 37% and 42% and the incidence of hemorrhagic complications was 30% and 33% in the pre- and post-groups, respectively, with no between-group differences. There were three (11%) aneurysm re-ruptures in the pre-group and none in the post-group. There were no differences in mortality or mRS 0-2 between the groups at 6 months.ConclusionWe found no major differences in the incidence of ischemic or hemorrhagic complications after the implementation of a standardized antithrombotic protocol for acute flow diversion for ruptured IAs. There is an urgent need for more evidence-based guidelines to optimize antithrombotic treatment after flow diversion in the setting of subarachnoid hemorrhage.