4.4 Article

The value of long-term angiographic follow-up following Pipeline embolization of intracranial aneurysms

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROINTERVENTIONAL SURGERY
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages 585-+

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-017745

Keywords

aneurysm; flow diverter

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Long-term angiography in patients with complete aneurysm occlusion and no in-stent stenosis at 6 months post-treatment may have low value in assessing the treatment outcomes of intracranial aneurysms treated with PED.
Background Flow diversion of intracranial aneurysms with the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) is commonly performed, but the value of long-term angiographic follow-up has not been rigorously evaluated. Here we examine the prevalence of actionable findings of aneurysm recurrence and development of in-stent stenosis in a cohort of patients that underwent long-term angiographic follow-up at multiple time points. Methods Angiographic data from eligible patients were retrospectively assessed for aneurysm occlusion, in-stent stenosis, and aneurysm regrowth or recurrence. Patients were included in this study if they underwent angiographic imaging at 6 months post-treatment and at least one later time point. Results 100% (132/132) of aneurysms occluded at 6 months remained occluded at final follow-up. 85.7% (6/7), 56.3% (27/48), and 25% (6/24) of aneurysms with entry remnant, subtotal filling, and total filling, respectively, at 6 months were completely occluded at final follow-up. 98.7% (147/149) of PED constructs that demonstrated no stenosis at 6 months demonstrated no stenosis at final angiography, while 44.4% (8/18) of PED constructs demonstrating in-stent stenosis at 6 months had resolution of stenosis on final angiography. Conclusions Among patients who undergo treatment of intracranial aneurysms with PED, the value of long-term angiography in patients demonstrating complete aneurysm occlusion and no in-stent stenosis on 6 month post-treatment angiography is low.

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