Background Intracranial aneurysms located in the distal vessels are rare and remain a challenge to treat through surgical or endovascular interventions.
Objective To describe a multicenter approach with flow diversion using the pipeline embolization device (PED) for treatment of distal intracranial aneurysms.
Methods Cases of distal intracranial aneurysms defined as starting on or beyond the A2 anterior cerebral artery, M2 middle cerebral artery, and P2 posterior cerebral artery segments were included in the final analysis.
Results 65 patients with distal aneurysms treated with the PED were analyzed. Median aneurysm size at the largest diameter was 7.0 mm, 60% were of a saccular morphology, and 9/65 (13.8%) patients presented in the setting of acute rupture. Angiographic follow-up data were available for 53 patients, with a median follow-up time of 6 months: 44/53 (83%) aneurysms showed complete obliteration, 7/53 (13.2%) showed reduced filling, and 2/53 (3%) showed persistent filling. There was no association between patient characteristics, including aneurysm size (P=0.36), parent vessel diameter (P=0.27), location (P=0.81), morphology (P=0.63), ruptured status on admission (P=0.57), or evidence of angiographic occlusion at the end of the embolization procedure (P=0.49). Clinical outcome data were available for 60/65 patients: 95% (57/60) had good clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale score of 0–2) at 3 months.
Conclusions This large multicenter study of patients with A2, M2, and P2 distal aneurysms treated with the PED showed that flow diversion may be an effective treatment approach for this rare type of vascular pathology. The procedural compilation rate of 7.7% indicates the need for further studies as the flow diversion technology constantly evolves.
- blood flow
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Contributors MM: study concept and design. MM and CTP wrote the manuscript. MM and CTP performed the statistical analysis. All authors participated in data collection, edited the manuscript, and approved the final version.
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 The study was approved by the local institutional review board at each participating center for retrospective data collection and review.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement All data was presented in this paper.