4.3 Review

Early experience with flow diverting endoluminal stents for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE
卷 18, 期 7, 页码 891-894

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2011.01.002

关键词

Blood vessel prosthesis; Intracranial aneurysm; Stents; Subarachnoid hemorrhage; Surgical procedures; Therapeutic embolization; Vascular review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We aimed to identify the initial preliminary experience with flow diverting stents (FDS) for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms (IA). A PubMed search was performed to identify studies reporting patients treated with FDS. Selection was made for studies that provided either immediate or short term follow-up data. For each study, the number of patients and IA were identified. Details regarding the aneurysm itself were recorded; such as aneurysm morphology (saccular or fusiform), location, and rupture status. The primary treatment modality and the number of stents used to treat each aneurysm was recorded along with the antiplatelet regimen used. Outcomes such as aneurysm occlusion and complications, including stroke, in-stent thrombosis and stenosis, and death were identified. The average length of follow-up was calculated in weeks. A total of 10 manuscripts reporting 206 IA in 190 patients were identified in the literature. Occlusion rates were variably reported, ranging from 58% to 94% in the larger series. Major complications of treatment included stroke (6.0%), in-stent thrombosis and stenosis (4.9%), and death (3.3%). A phenomenon of delayed aneurysm rupture was also identified. We concluded that flow diverting stents have proven effective in a variety of scenarios. The major complications with FDS have related to perforator artery stroke, aneurysm re-rupture, and in-stent stenosis and thrombosis. Long-term efficacy, optimal antithrombotic agent regimen, and perforator stroke risk are yet to be determined. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据