Dataset Information

Intrasaccular flow-disruption treatment of intracranial aneurysms: preliminary results of a multicenter clinical study.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

The endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with unfavorable anatomy (large aneurysms, wide-neck) is frequently challenging and is also associated with a high incidence of significant recurrences. The WEB, an intrasaccular flow disrupter, was designed for use in this type of aneurysm. We report our early experience with this device in this multicenter study.

Materials and methods

Twenty patients with 21 aneurysms were treated by using the WEB in 3 European centers. The ability to successfully deploy the WEB, immediate posttreatment angiographic results, adverse events, clinical outcome, and angiographic follow-up results were recorded.

Results

Aneurysm location was the ICA (4/21, 19.1%), MCA (8/21, 38.1%), AcomA (5/21, 23.8%), and BA (4/21, 19.1%). No treatment failures were reported. Treatment was performed exclusively with the WEB in 16/21 (76.2%) patients. Additional treatment (coiling and/or stent placement) was used in 5/21 (23.8%) patients. One patient (4.8%) experienced transient clinical worsening (mRS 1 at 1 month, mRS 0 at 3 months) related to a thromboembolic event. Inadvertent detachment of the WEB was observed, and the WEB was retrieved in 1 patient, without adverse effects. In the short-term follow-up (2-8 months), adequate occlusion (total occlusion or neck remnant) was observed in 80.0% of aneurysms.

Conclusions

Intrasaccular flow disruption is a new endovascular approach for aneurysm treatment. In our preliminary experience, this treatment was feasible and mostly used in bifurcation aneurysms (MCA, BA, ICA) with unfavorable anatomy. Further studies are needed to precisely evaluate the indications, safety, and efficacy of this new technique.

SUBMITTER: Pierot L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7965497 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposeFlow-diverter stents are emerging for the endovascular treatment of difficult-to-treat or otherwise untreatable cerebral aneurysms (wide-neck, fusiform, dissecting, blisterlike, or giant). We assessed the clinical safety and efficacy of the Flow-Redirection Endoluminal Device.Materials and methodsThis was an institutional review board-approved single-center observational clinical study in 29 patients with 34 aneurysms elected to be treated by endovascular intervention. After providing informed consent, patients were included according to the following criteria: aneurysm fundus-to-neck ratio <2 or neck diameter >4 mm, fusiform, dissecting, or giant aneurysms. The primary end point for clinical safety was the absence of death, absence of major or minor stroke, and absence of transient ischemic attack. The primary end point for treatment efficacy was complete angiographic occlusion according to the O'Kelly Marotta grading scale immediately after the procedure and at follow-up after 3 and 6 months (O'Kelly Marotta D: complete occlusion).ResultsThe Flow-Redirection Intraluminal Device deployment was technically successful in all cases. In 26/29 (89%) of patients, the primary end point of safety was reached; in the 3 remaining patients, 1 disabling ischemic stroke and 2 minor strokes with complete recovery at follow-up were observed. Angiographic (DSA and MRA) and clinical follow-up were available after 3 months in 29/29 (100%) and after 6 months in 25/29 (86%) patients (after 6 months, only MRA follow-up was performed according to our study protocol and institutional standard). At 3-month follow-up, complete occlusion was reached in 19/34 aneurysms (O'Kelly Marotta D: 19/34; 56%). At 6-month follow-up, aneurysm occlusion was complete in 22/30 aneurysms (O'Kelly Marotta D: 22/30; 73%).ConclusionsDeployment of the Flow-Redirection Intraluminal Device flow-diverter stent is safe and effective in the treatment of difficult-to-treat or otherwise untreatable intracranial aneurysms.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:The Analysis of Recanalization after Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysm (ARETA) prospective study aims to determine factors predicting recurrence after endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms. In this publication, we review endovascular techniques and present the study population. Characteristics of treated and untreated unruptured aneurysms were analyzed. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Sixteen neurointerventional departments prospectively enrolled patients treated for ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms between December 2013 and May 2015. Patient demographics, aneurysm characteristics, and endovascular techniques were recorded. RESULTS:A total of 1289 patients with 1761 intracranial aneurysms, 835 (47.4%) ruptured, were enrolled. Of these, 1359 intracranial aneurysms were treated by endovascular means. Ruptured intracranial aneurysms were treated by coiling and balloon-assisted coiling in 97.8% of cases. In unruptured intracranial aneurysms, the rates of flow diversion, flow disruption, and stent-assisted coiling were 11.6%, 6.9%, and 7.8%, respectively. Rupture status and aneurysm location, neck diameter, and sac size significantly influenced the chosen technique. Treated unruptured intracranial aneurysms, compared with untreated counterparts, had larger aneurysm sacs (7.6 ± 4.0 versus 3.4 ± 2.0 mm; P < 0.001) and neck dimensions (4.1 ± 2.2 versus 2.4 ± 1.3 mm; P < 0.001) and more frequently an irregular form (84.6% versus 44.4%; P < 0.001). Also, its location influenced whether an unruptured intracranial aneurysm was treated. CONCLUSIONS:Our study provides an overview of current neurointerventional practice in the ARETA cohort. The technique choice was influenced by aneurysm morphology, location, and rupture status. Flow diversion, flow disruption, and stent-assisted coiling were commonly used in unruptured intracranial aneurysms, while most ruptured intracranial aneurysms were treated with coiling and balloon-assisted coiling.

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.

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: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.