4.4 Article

Prospective study on embolization of intracranial aneurysms with the pipeline device: the PREMIER study 1 year results

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROINTERVENTIONAL SURGERY
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 62-66

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015091

关键词

aneurysm; flow diverter; artery; brain; intervention

资金

  1. Medtronic, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Preliminary clinical studies on the safety and efficacy of the pipeline embolization device (PED) for the treatment of small/medium aneurysms have demonstrated high occlusion rates with low complications. Objective To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the PED for treatment of wide necked small and medium intracranial aneurysms. Methods PREMIER is a prospective, multicenter, single arm trial. Patients were treated with the PED for unruptured wide necked aneurysms, measuring <= 12 mm along the internal carotid artery or vertebral artery, between July 2014 and November 2015. At 1 year post-procedure, the primary effectiveness endpoint was complete occlusion (Raymond grade 1) without major parent vessel stenosis (<= 50%) or retreatment, and the primary safety endpoint was major stroke in the territory supplied by the treated artery or neurologic death. Results A total of 141 patients were treated with PEDs (mean age 54.6 +/- 11.3 years, 87.9% (124/141) women). Mean aneurysm size was 5.0 +/- 1.92 mm, and 84.4% (119/141) measured <7 mm. PED placement was successful in 99.3% (140/141) of patients. Mean number of PEDs implanted per patient was 1.1 +/- 0.26; a single PED was used in 92.9% (131/141) of patients. At 1 year, 97.9% (138/141) of patients underwent follow-up angiography with 76.8% (106/138) of patients having met the study's primary effectiveness endpoint. The combined major morbidity and mortality rate was 2.1% (3/140). Conclusions Treatment of wide necked small/medium aneurysms with the PED results in high rates of complete occlusion without significant parent vessel stenosis and low rates of permanent neurologic complications.

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

4.4
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