4.2 Article

Low-Profile Laser-Cut Stents for Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms Incidence, Clinical Presentation and Risk Factors of Thromboembolic Events

期刊

CLINICAL NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 107-115

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00062-019-00874-1

关键词

Acandis Acclino; Stroke; Thromboembolic event; Neuroform Atlas; Stent-assisted coiling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the incidence, clinical relevance, and risk factors of thromboembolic events during low-profile stent-assisted coiling of intracranial aneurysms, finding that Y-stenting may carry an increased risk of TEEs.
Purpose Low-profile intracranial stents are characterized by a miniaturized design that enables deployment via a 0.0165 '' or 0.017 '' internal diameter microcatheter, which is typically intended for coil delivery. This study analyzed the incidence, clinical relevance and risk factors of thromboembolic events (TEE) occurring during low-profile stent-assisted coiling of intracranial aneurysms. Methods This was a retrospective, multicenter analysis of consecutive patients who underwent stent-assisted aneurysm coiling (SAC) with the laser-cut Acandis Acclino and Neuroform Atlas stents. The study evaluated the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic TEEs and the impact on functional outcome. Risk factors for TEEs were determined by univariate and bivariate logistic regression analyses. Results Among 131 procedures (mean patient age 56.5 +/- 12.8 years, mean aneurysm size: 6.7 +/- 3.9mm) TEEs occurred in 14 cases (10.7%) of which 2 patients (1.5%) developed ischemic stroke, while the remaining TEEs remained asymptomatic. Multivariate analysis revealed Y-stenting as potential risk factor for TEEs (odds ratio: 3.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.0-16.5; p= 0.08). Conclusion The use of SAC with low-profile intracranial stents is associated with a favorable safety profile; however, Y-stenting may carry an increased risk of TEEs, which needs to be considered during treatment planning.

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

4.2
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