Perianeurysmal brain inflammation after flow-diversion treatment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background and purpose
Flow-diverter stents are an alternative treatment for challenging and recurrent aneurysms. Thrombosis of the sac is thought to induce perianeurysmal brain inflammation, but such phenomena have never been studied in flow-diverter devices. We developed imaging data to explain the clinical exacerbation of symptoms after flow-diversion treatment.Materials and methods
Seventeen patients with unruptured aneurysms were treated by using a flow-diverter device. Clinical symptoms and angiographic and MR imaging features were recorded before and after treatment, during both the acute and chronic phases, to look for inflammatory reaction.Results
Seven of the 17 patients (41%) showed a delayed clinical aggravation of symptoms posttreatment consisting of a headache (n = 7) with aggravation of pre-existing compressive symptoms (n = 4) and the appearance of compressive symptoms (n = 1). This clinical deterioration was transient; it was observed between 3 and 15 days posttreatment and resolved by day 30. MR imaging revealed signs highly suggestive of perianeurysmal inflammation with vasogenic edema and blood-brain barrier breakdown. The association between MR imaging inflammatory features and clinical aggravation was statistically significant. Large aneurysmal size and its proximity to surrounding brain tissue were predictive of this inflammatory reaction after flow diversion.Conclusions
The main finding of the series is that MR imaging-defined perianeurysmal inflammation is observed with a high frequency after treatment of unruptured aneurysms with flow diverters and is, in most cases, associated with a transient clinical deterioration.
SUBMITTER: Berge J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7966003 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and purposeAneurysms 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 methodsPatients 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsOur 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.
| S-EPMC7964557 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8381420 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9451626 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Flow diversion is a novel concept for treating anatomically challenging intracranial aneurysms and has gained increasing acceptance. Flow diverter stents, such as the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) (ev3-Covidien, Irvine, CA, USA), are approved for treating unruptured large and giant aneurysms from the internal carotid artery between the superior hypophyseal and cavernous segments. However, technological advances and recent clinical results suggest that flow diversion can be safely and effectively used in treating ruptured aneurysms, posterior circulation aneurysms, and distal anterior circulation aneurysms. In this brief review, we aim to investigate the recent evidence on the utilization of PEDs in these controversial vascular territories and to discuss whether the indications for flow diversion can be expanded.
| S-EPMC4772997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeFD technology enables reconstructive repair of otherwise difficult-to-treat intracranial aneurysms. These stentlike devices may induce progressive aneurysm thrombosis without additional implants and may initiate complete reverse vessel remodeling. The associated vascular biologic processes are as yet only partially understood.Materials and methodsFrom 12 different centers, 13 cases of delayed postprocedural aneurysm rupture were recorded and analyzed. Symptom, aneurysm location and morphology, and the time elapsed from treatment until rupture were analyzed.ResultsThere were 10 internal carotid and 3 basilar artery aneurysms. Mean aneurysm diameter was 22 ± 6 mm. Eleven patients were symptomatic before treatment. A single FD was used for all saccular aneurysms, while fusiform lesions were treated by using multiple devices. A supplementary loose coiling of the aneurysm was performed in 1 patient only. Ten patients developed early aneurysm rupture after FD treatment (mean, 16 days; range, 2-48 days); in 3 patients, rupture occurred 3-5 months after treatment. In all cases, most of the aneurysm cavity was thrombosed before rupture. The biologic mechanisms predisposing to rupture under these conditions are reviewed and discussedConclusionsFDs alone may modify hemodynamics in ways that induce extensive aneurysm thrombosis. Under specific conditions, however, instead of reverse remodeling and cicatrization, aggressive thrombus-associated autolysis of the aneurysm wall may result in delayed rupture.
| S-EPMC7964960 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10927838 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Uptake of flow-diverting technology is rapidly outpacing the availability of clinical evidence. Most current usage is off-label, and the endovascular community is nearer the beginning than the end of the learning curve, given the number of devices in development. A comprehensive overview of technical specifications alongside key outcome data is essential both for clinical decision-making and to direct further investigations. Most-studied has been the Pipeline Embolization Device, which has undergone a transition to the Pipeline Flex for which outcome data are sparse or heterogeneous. Alternative endoluminal devices do not appear to be outperforming the Pipeline Embolization Device to date, though prospective studies and long-term data mostly are lacking, and between-study comparisons must be treated with caution. Nominal technical specifications may be unrelated to in situ performance, emphasizing the importance of correct radiologic sizing and device placement. Devices designed specifically for bifurcation aneurysms also lack long-term outcome data or have only recently become available for clinical use. There are no major studies directly comparing a flow-diverting device with standard coiling or microsurgical clipping. Data on flow-diverting stents are too limited in terms of long-term outcomes to reliably inform clinical decision-making. The best available evidence supports using a single endoluminal device for most indications. Recommendations on the suitability and choice of a device for bifurcation or ruptured aneurysms or for anatomically complex lesions cannot be made on the basis of current evidence. The appropriateness of flow-diverting treatment must be decided on a case-by-case basis, considering experience and the relative risks against standard approaches or observation.
| S-EPMC7048527 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTransradial access for neurointerventions offers advantages of fewer access-site complications, reduced procedure time, and greater patient comfort over transfemoral access. Data about transradial access for flow diversion are limited. We share our early experience with transradial access for flow diversion in a relatively large case series.MethodsConsecutive patients who underwent Pipeline embolization device (Medtronic) deployment via transradial access were included in the study, irrespective of location and laterality of the intracranial aneurysm. The cases were performed between July 2016 and October 2019. Demographics, aneurysm characteristics, and procedure-related details (including catheter systems used) were recorded and statistically evaluated.ResultsThirty-five transradial flow diversion procedures were attempted in 32 patients, of which 33 procedures were successful. In two cases involving left common carotid artery and internal carotid artery access, guide catheter herniation into the aortic arch led to abandonment of transradial access in favor of transfemoral access. The most common aneurysm locations in the transradial access procedures were the posterior communicating artery (n = 7), ophthalmic artery (n = 7), and superior hypophyseal artery (n = 7). Most transradial access procedures (66.7%) were performed using a biaxial catheter system. 6-French Benchmark (Penumbra) and Phenom 27 (Medtronic) were the most commonly utilized guide- and microcatheters, respectively. One patient had intraprocedural subarachnoid hemorrhage. No access-site complications occurred.ConclusionThis study demonstrates safety and feasibility of transradial access for Pipeline embolization device deployment and shows the versatility of this approach for different catheter systems. Tortuosity and acute angulation of the left common carotid artery and internal carotid artery were associated with approach failure.
| S-EPMC7903544 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endovascular interventions using coil embolization and flow diversion are becoming the mainstream treatment for intracranial aneurysms (IAs). To help assess the effect of intervention strategies on aneurysm hemodynamics and treatment outcome, we have developed a finite-element-method (FEM)-based technique for coil deployment along with our HiFiVS technique for flow diverter (FD) deployment in patient-specific IAs. We tested four clinical intervention strategies: coiling (1-8 coils), single FD, FD with adjunctive coils (1-8 coils), and overlapping FDs. By evaluating post-treatment hemodynamics using computational fluid dynamics (CFD), we compared the flow-modification performance of these strategies. Results show that a single FD provides more reduction in inflow rate than low packing density (PD) coiling, but less reduction in average velocity inside the aneurysm. Adjunctive coils add no additional reduction of inflow rate beyond a single FD until coil PD exceeds 11%. This suggests that the main role of FDs is to divert inflow, while that of coils is to create stasis in the aneurysm. Overlapping FDs decreases inflow rate, average velocity, and average wall shear stress (WSS) in the aneurysm sac, but adding a third FD produces minimal additional reduction. In conclusion, our FEM-based techniques for virtual coiling and flow diversion enable recapitulation of complex endovascular intervention strategies and detailed hemodynamics to identify hemodynamic factors that affect treatment outcome.
| S-EPMC4801175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with complex morphologies such as giant, wide-necked, or fusiform aneurysms is challenging. Stent-assisted coiling and balloon-assisted coiling are alternative techniques to treat such complex aneurysms, but studies have shown less-than-expected efficacy, as suggested by their high rate of recanalization. The management of complex aneurysms via microsurgery or conventional neuroendovascular strategies has traditionally been poor. However, over the last few years, flow-diverting stents (FDS) have revolutionized the treatment of such aneurysms. FDS are implanted within the parent artery rather than the aneurysm sac. By modifying intra-aneurysmal and parent-vessel flow dynamics at the aneurysm/parent vessel interface, FDS trigger a cascade of gradual intra-aneurysmal thrombosis. As endothelialization of the FDS is complete, the parent vessel reconstructs while preserving the patency of normal perforators and side branch vessels. As with any intervention, the practice and application of flow-diversion technology is inherent, with risks that include vessel rupture or perforation, in-stent thrombosis, perforator occlusion, procedural and delayed hemorrhages, and perianeurysmal edema. Herein, we review the devices, their mechanisms of actions, clinical applications, complications, and ongoing studies.
| S-EPMC4965406 | biostudies-literature