Dataset Information

Early Experience with Comaneci, a Newly FDA-Approved Controllable Assist Device for Wide-Necked Intracranial Aneurysm Coiling.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Comaneci (Rapid Medical) is a compliant, adjustable mesh that provides temporary scaffolding during coiling of wide-necked intracranial aneurysms (WNAs) that preserves antegrade flow. We report our early multi-institutional experience with the Comaneci device in the USA.

Method

We reviewed all patients with WNAs that were treated using the Comaneci device for coil remodeling of ruptured and unruptured aneurysms at 4 institutions between July 2019 and May 2020. Clinical characteristics, angiographic variables, and endovascular results were assessed.

Results

A total of 26 patients were included (18 women). The mean age was 62.7 years (range 44-81). Fifteen patients presented with ruptured aneurysms and 11 with unruptured aneurysms. The mean aneurysm neck width was 3.91 mm (range 1.9-6.5) with a mean dome-to-neck ratio of 1.57 (range 0.59-3.39). The mean maximum width was 5.80 mm (range 3.0-9.9) and the mean maximum height was 5.61 mm (range 2.0-11.8). Successful aneurysm occlusion was achieved in 25 of 26 patients. Complete occlusion was achieved in 16 patients, near-complete occlusion was observed in 9 patients, and 1 patient demonstrated residual filling. The mean time of device exposure was 24 min (range 8-76). No vasospasm was observed at the device location. Clot formation on the device was noted in 2 separate cases, but there were no clinical sequelae. There was 1 intraprocedural complication in a case that involved the simultaneous use of 2 Comaneci devices.

Conclusions

Our initial experience shows that the Comaneci device is a promising and reliable tool that can safely support coil remodeling of WNAs.

SUBMITTER: Taqi MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8315690 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposeStent-assisted coiling was initially invented for wide-neck aneurysms, but is now used for smaller berry aneurysms. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficiency of stent-assisted coiling with conventional coiling in treatment of intracranial aneurysms.MethodsA meta-analysis of studies that compared stent-assisted coiling with coiling only was conducted by searching English literatures via Pubmed, Medline and Cochrane Library databases without restricting the publication year. The primary outcomes in this study were immediate occlusion, progressive thrombosis rate, all-complication rate and angiographic recurrence. The secondary outcomes examined were packing density, mortality, permanent complication and thromboembolic complication rate.ResultsTen retrospective cohort studies were included. There is currently only one unfinished randomized study. Although the stent-assisted coiling group tended to show a lower initial occlusion rate than that of the coiling-only group (57.6% versus 68.7%; OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.30-1.44; P = 0.30), it achieved a significantly higher progressive thrombosis rate during follow up compared to that of the coiling only group (37.5% versus 19.4%; OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.95-3.86; P<0.00001) and a significantly lower recurrence rate (16.2% versus 34.4%; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.49; P<0.00001). With respect to safety concerns, the all-complication rate (17.6% versus 15.9%; OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.77-1.62; P = 0.56), mortality rate (9.1% versus 2.6%; OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.68-7.82; P = 0.18), permanent complication rate (5.6% versus 3.9%; OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.96-2.41; P = 0.08) and thromboembolic complication rate (4.2% versus 4.9%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.41-2.38; P = 0.97) did not show significant difference between the two groups.ConclusionsStent-assisted coiling has a lower recurrence rate than conventional coiling. Analysis of complication events did not show any significant difference between the two methods. Despite the findings reported herein, further validation by well-designed prospective studies is needed.

Project description:BackgroundUnruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA) are increasingly being treated by endovascular coiling as opposed to open surgical clipping. Unfortunately, endovascular coiling imparts an approximate 25% recanalization rate, leading to additional procedures and increased rupture risk. While a new health technology innovation (HTI) that reduces this recanalization rate would benefit patients, few advancements have been made. We aim to determine whether cost-effectiveness has been a barrier to HTI.MethodsA probabilistic Markov model was constructed from the healthcare payer perspective to compare standard endovascular treatment of UIA to standard treatment plus the addition of a HTI adjunct. Costs were measured in 2018 USD and health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). In the base case, the HTI was a theoretical mesenchymal stem cell therapy which reduced the aneurysm recanalization rate by 50% and cost $10,000 per procedure. All other model inputs were derived from the published scientific literature.ResultsBased on the model results, we found that for a given HTI price (y) and relative risk reduction of aneurysm recanalization (x), the HTI was always cost-effective if the following equation was satisfied: y ≤ 20268 ∙ x, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY. The uncertainty surrounding whether an aneurysm would recanalize was a significant driver within the model. When the uncertainty around the risk of aneurysm recanalization was eliminated, the 10-year projected additional benefit to the United States healthcare system was calculated to be $113,336,994.ConclusionCost-effectiveness does not appear to be a barrier to innovation in reducing the recanalization rate of UIA treated by endovascular coil embolization. Our model can now be utilized by academia and industry to accentuate economically feasible HTI and by healthcare payers to calculate their maximum willingness-to-pay for a new technology. Our results also indicate that predicting a patient's baseline risk of aneurysm recanalization is a critical area of future research.

Project description:BackgroundOne limitation of the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms is aneurysm recanalization. The Analysis of Recanalization after Endovascular Treatment of intracranial Aneurysm (ARETA) study is a prospective multicenter cohort study evaluating the factors associated with recanalization after endovascular treatment.MethodsThe current analysis is focused on patients treated by coiling or balloon-assisted coiling (BAC). Postoperative, mid-term vascular imaging, and evolution of aneurysm occlusion were independently evaluated by two neuroradiologists. A 3-grade scale was used for aneurysm occlusion (complete occlusion, neck remnant, and aneurysm remnant) and for occlusion evolution (improved, stable, and worsened). Recanalization was defined as any worsening of aneurysm occlusion.ResultsBetween December 2013 and May 2015, 16 French neurointerventional departments enrolled 1289 patients. A total of 945 aneurysms in 908 patients were treated with coiling or BAC. The overall rate of aneurysm recanalization at mid-term follow-up was 29.5% (95% CI 26.6% to 32.4%): 28.9% and 30.3% in the coiling and BAC groups, respectively. In multivariate analyses factors independently associated with recanalization were current smoking (36.6% in current smokers vs 24.5% in current non-smokers (OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.4); p=0.0001), ruptured status (31.9% in ruptured aneurysms vs 25.1% in unruptured (OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.1); p=0.006), aneurysm size ≥10 mm (48.8% vs 26.5% in aneurysms <10 mm (OR 2.6 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.9); p<0.0001), wide neck (32.1% vs 25.8% in narrow neck (OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.1); p=0.02), and MCA location (34.3% vs 28.3% in other locations (OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.1); p=0.04).ConclusionsSeveral factors are identified by the ARETA study as playing a role in aneurysm recanalization after coiling: current smoking, aneurysm status (ruptured), aneurysm size (≥10 mm), neck size (wide neck), and aneurysm location (middle cerebral artery). This finding has important consequences in clinical practice.Trial registration numberURL: http://www.Clinicaltrialsgov; Unique Identifier: NCT01942512.