4.5 Article

Intrasaccular Flow-Disruption Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms: Preliminary Results of a Multicenter Clinical Study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 33, 期 7, 页码 1232-1238

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3191

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sequent

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with unfavorable anatomy (large aneurysms, wide-neck) is frequently challenging and is also associated with a high incidence of significant recurrences. The WEB, an intrasaccular flow disrupter, was designed for use in this type of aneurysm. We report our early experience with this device in this multicenter study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with 21 aneurysms were treated by using the WEB in 3 European centers. The ability to successfully deploy the WEB, immediate posttreatment angiographic results, adverse events, clinical outcome, and angiographic follow-up results were recorded. RESULTS: Aneurysm location was the ICA (4/21, 19.1%), MCA (8/21, 38.1%), AcomA (5/21, 23.8%), and BA (4/21, 19.1%). No treatment failures were reported. Treatment was performed exclusively with the WEB in 16/21 (76.2%) patients. Additional treatment (coiling and/or stent placement) was used in 5/21 (23.8%) patients. One patient (4.8%) experienced transient clinical worsening (mRS 1 at 1 month, mRS 0 at 3 months) related to a thromboembolic event. Inadvertent detachment of the WEB was observed, and the WEB was retrieved in 1 patient, without adverse effects. In the short-term follow-up (2-8 months), adequate occlusion (total occlusion or neck remnant) was observed in 80.0% of aneurysms. CONCLUSIONS: Intrasaccular flow disruption is a new endovascular approach for aneurysm treatment. In our preliminary experience, this treatment was feasible and mostly used in bifurcation aneurysms (MCA, BA, ICA) with unfavorable anatomy. Further studies are needed to precisely evaluate the indications, safety, and efficacy of this new technique.

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

4.5
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