Background Little is known about in-stent stenosis (ISS) in patients with aneurysms treated with flow diverter (FD) stents. The reported incidence in the literature varies significantly.
Objective The aim of this study was to assess the incidence, severity, distribution, clinical significance, and possible predictors for ISS.
Methods Between July 2012 and June 2016 we retrospectively reviewed all patients treated with SILK FDs in our center. Only cases with short-term (4±2 months) and long-term (>1 year) follow-ups with digital subtraction angiograms were included. ISS was graded as mild (<25%), moderate (25–50%) or severe (>50%). The following predictors for ISS were assessed: gender, age, the presence of subarachnoid hemorrhage, aneurysm size, location, occlusion status, and post-stenting angioplasty.
Results Thirty-six patients met the inclusion criteria. At mid-term follow-up, ISS was observed in 16/36 patients (44%). Eleven patients (69%) had mild ISS, three (19%) moderate, and two (12%) severe ISS. ISS was diffuse in 11 patients (69%) and focal in five patients (31%). All patients were asymptomatic. Thirteen patients were maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy and three on aspirin alone. At long-term follow-up, complete ISS resolution was seen in 11 patients, improvement in three and worsening in two patients. No de novo ISS occurrence was observed. On univariate analysis there was no significant predictor for ISS.
Conclusions Transient ISS after FD deployment is a common asymptomatic finding on mid-term angiographic follow-up. Complete resolution or improvement at long-term follow-up is seen in most patients who are maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy.
- flow diverter
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors Study concept and design: FE and DI. Data collection and analysis: all authors. Literature review: FE and DI. Manuscript drafting: FE. Manuscript revision, editing, final approval and accountable for all aspects of the work: all authors.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Ethics approval Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement Additional data can be acquired by contacting the corresponding author.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.