4.7 Article

Flow-Diverter Stent for the Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms A Prospective Study in 29 Patients With 34 Aneurysms

Journal

STROKE
Volume 41, Issue 10, Pages 2247-2253

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.589911

Keywords

detachable coils; intracranial aneurysms; stents

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose-The purpose of this study is to report our preliminary experience with the flow-diverter Silk stent for the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Methods-This prospective study was approved by the authors' ethical committees. Twenty-nine patients with 34 fusiform or wide-necked unruptured aneurysms were included and treated by Silk stent placement alone by 2 physicians in 3 different centers. Technical issues, immediate findings, delayed complications, clinical follow-up, and imaging follow-up at 3 and 6 months were assessed. Results-Endovascular treatment was successfully performed in 26 patients (90%). In 3 patients, the stent could not be delivered. Mortality and morbidity rates were of 4% (1 of 26) and 15% (4 of 26), respectively; 1 patient died from a delayed aneurysm rupture related to stent migration, 3 experienced a thromboembolic event, and 1 patient developed progressive visual disturbances related to an increased mass effect. Clinical outcome in 25 patients was unchanged (n=19), improved (n=2), or worsened (=4). Angiographic follow-up in 24 patients (29 aneurysms) showed 20 complete occlusions (69%), 1 neck remnant (3.5%), and 8 incomplete occlusions (27.5%). Significant parent artery stenosis at 6 months occurred in 8 cases (33%). Conclusions-Despite the potential interest of the Silk flow-diverter stent to treat complex intracranial aneurysms without coils, the delayed complication rate is quite high and leads to use this technique only in selective cases. (Stroke. 2010;41:2247-2253.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available