Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Hemodynamic differences between Pipeline and coil-adjunctive intracranial stents
  1. Brian Thomas Jankowitz1,
  2. Bradley A Gross2,
  3. Santhosh Seshadhri3,
  4. Gaurav Girdhar3,
  5. Ashutosh Jadhav4,
  6. Tudor G Jovin4,
  7. John Michael Wainwright3
  1. 1 Department of Neurosurgery, UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2 Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  3. 3 Department of Neurovascular, Medtronic plc., Irvine, California, USA
  4. 4 Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Brian Thomas Jankowitz, Department of Neurological Surgery, UPMC, Pittsburgh PA 15219, USA; jankbt{at}


Introduction Modern coil-adjunctive intracranial stent designs have increased metal surface coverage to construct putative ‘flow diverter lights.’ This is rooted in the assumption that flow diversion is linearly correlated with metal surface coverage rather than being a threshold to be reached by device porosity and design.

Objective To evaluate this assumption, by performing computational flow analysis on three aneurysm models treated with low metal surface coverage stents (ATLAS and Enterprise), a Pipeline flow diverter, and the LVIS Blue stent.

Methods Computational flow analysis was performed on virtual deployment models entailing deployment of an ATLAS, Enterprise, LVIS Blue, or Pipeline. The impact of device deployment on velocity vectors at the neck, maximum wall shear stress, inflow rate into the aneurysm, and turnover time was determined.

Results Velocity vector plots demonstrated low magnitude, localized inflow jets for Pipeline only; asymmetric, selectively high inflow jets were seen for LVIS Blue, and broader velocity vector clusters were seen for Atlas and Enterprise. Reduction in wall shear stress as compared with baseline was significant for all devices and greatest for the Pipeline. Mean peak wall shear stress was significantly lower for LVIS Blue in comparison with ATLAS or Enterprise but significantly lower for Pipeline than for LVIS Blue. Reduction of inflow rate into the aneurysm was significant for LVIS Blue and Pipeline but significantly lower for Pipeline than for LVIS Blue. Turnover time was statistically similar for ATLAS, Enterprise, and LVIS Blue, but significantly increased for Pipeline.

Conclusion Considerable differences in peak wall shear stress, inflow rates, and turnover time between flow diverters, moderate- and low-porosity stents reinforce the assumption that effective flow diversion represents a threshold in device design, encompassing metal surface coverage only in part.

  • aneurysm
  • flow diverter
  • stent

Statistics from

Request Permissions

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 Conception and design: BTJ, SS, GG, JMW. Drafting the article: BTJ, BAG, GG. Acquisition of data/data analysis: BTJ, BAG, SS, GG, JMW. Reviewed and revised article before submission: all authors. Study supervision: BTJ, TGJ, JMW.

  • 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.

    no grant

  • Competing interests BTJ: consultant: Medtronic; BAG: consultant: Microvention; TGJ: consultant: Stryker Neurovascular (PI DAWN-unpaid); ownership interest: Anaconda; advisory board/investor; FreeOx Biotech; advisory board/investor; Route 92; advisory board/investor: Blockade Medical; consultant/honoraria: Cerenovus.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.