4.3 Article

Overlapping stents for blood blister-like aneurysms of the internal carotid artery

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY
Volume 123, Issue -, Pages 34-39

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.04.023

Keywords

Aneurysm; Endovascular intervention; Overlapping stents

Funding

  1. Foundation of Shanghai Public Health Bureau [20114232]
  2. Shanghai Science and Technology Development Funds [13140903201]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81301004]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Blood blister-like aneurysms (BBAs) are unique due to their high risk of recurrent bleeding associated with their fragile neck. The best treatment for BBAs is still controversial. This paper sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of stent-assisted coiling and subsequent overlapping stents (SAC + OS) in the treatment of BBAs. Methods: Fifteen consecutive patients with ruptured BBAs managed with SAC + OS were enrolled in this study. The clinical characteristics, procedural data, angiographic outcome, and follow-up results were reviewed. Results: SAC + OS were successfully performed in all 15 cases. The instant angiographic result was total occlusion in 6 cases, residual neck in 7 cases, and residual aneurysm in 2 cases. Angiographic follow-ups revealed total occlusion in all 6 cases treated by triple or quadruple stents, and 6 of 9 cases treated by double stents. Major recanalization was detected in 3 cases treated by double stents. The modified Rankin Scale score at 4-52 months follow-up (23.8 months on average) was 0 in 6 cases, 1 in 8 cases, and 3 in one case. Conclusion: Stent-assisted coiling and subsequent overlapping stents are feasible and safe for BBAs. It can be helpful to further decrease the risk of recanalization with more stents. Early angiographic follow-up within 2 weeks is recommended. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available