4.4 Article

Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with bioactive Cerecyte coils: effects on treatment stability

Journal

NEURORADIOLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 9, Pages 787-793

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00234-008-0399-1

Keywords

aneurysm; bioactive coil

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction The Cerecyte coils were developed to improve long-term stability of embolized cerebral aneurysms by producing an increased fibrous reaction over the neck of the aneurysms. We report our preliminary clinical experience with mid-term follow-up. Materials and methods Seventy-eight consecutive patients with 84 intracranial aneurysms treated exclusively with Cerecyte coils were included in this study. Forty-eight aneurysms were ruptured and 36 were incidental. Twenty-two aneurysms were small with (< 10 mm) small neck (< 4 mm) (SASN); 55 were small with wide neck (>= N4 mm) (SAWN); six were large (10-25 mm) (L); and one was giant (G) (> 25 mm). The embolization technique was the same with that in standard bare coiling. Results Immediate post-procedure angiography demonstrated complete aneurysm occlusion in 69%, neck remnant in 29.8% and incomplete occlusion in 1.2%. Follow-up angiography was obtained in 80 aneurysms in a period of time ranging from 6 months to 2 years. The overall recanalization rate was 11.3%, and the re-treatment rate was 6.3%; in the subgroup analysis, recanalization rates were 4.5% in S/S; 9.8% in S/W; and 33.3% in large aneurysms. The only giant aneurysm also showed recanalization. Procedure-related morbidity and mortality rates were 2.6% and 1.3%, respectively. Conclusions Our midterm results showed a relatively low rate of recurrence compared to those reported for platinum coils with morbidity and mortality rates comparable to those with standard bare platinum coils. The efficacy of Cerecyte coils in the long term will be specifically addressed by the ongoing randomized Cerecyte coil trial.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available