4.5 Article

Pipeline Embolization Device in Treatment of 50 Unruptured Large and Giant Aneurysms

Journal

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
Volume 105, Issue -, Pages 232-237

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.05.128

Keywords

Aneurysm; Complications; Giant; Intracranial; Large; Occlusion; Pipeline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of large (>= 20 mm) and giant (>= 25 mm) intracranial aneurysms is challenging and can be associated with a high rate of morbidity and mortality. The Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) has been used effectively for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms achieving a high rate of complete occlusion. However, its safety and efficacy in treatment of large and giant aneurysms has not been evaluated fully. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive aneurysms treated with PED between 2009 and 2016 at 3 academic institutions within the United States was performed. Large (>= 20 mm) and giant aneurysms (>= 25 mm) were selected for evaluation of occlusion and complication rates following treatment with PED. RESULTS: A total of 50 large and giant aneurysms were individually treated using PED. Aneurysms were fusiform (74%) or saccular (26%) in morphology. PED alone was used for treating 78% of the aneurysms, whereas PED with adjunctive coiling was used for treating 22%. The median length of angiographic follow-up was 13 months (mean follow up 20.4 months). At last follow-up, complete or nearcomplete occlusion (90-100%) was achieved in 76.9% of aneurysms. Symptomatic thromboembolic complications were encountered in 12% of procedures and symptomatic hemorrhagic complications in 8%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of PED for the treatment of large and giant intracranial aneurysms is associated with good occlusion rates, but also a greater complication rate compared to aneurysms of smaller size. There was no significant difference in occlusion rate based on aneurysm shape or size, number of PEDs placed, or adjunctive coiling.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available