Background The management of ruptured posterior circulation perforator aneurysms (rPCPAs) remains unclear. We present our experience in treating rPCPAs with flow diverter stents (FDs) and evaluate their safety and efficacy at mid- to long-term follow-up. A diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm for rPCPAs is also proposed.
Methods We retrospectively analyzed data from all consecutive patients with rPCPAs treated with FDs at our institutions between January 2013 and July 2019. Clinical presentations, time of treatments, intra- and perioperative complications, and clinical and angiographic outcomes were recorded, with a mid- to long-term follow-up. A systematic review of the literature on rPCPAs treated with FDs was also performed.
Results Seven patients with seven rPCPAs were treated with FDs. All patients presented with an atypical subarachnoid hemorrhage distribution and a low to medium Hunt–Hess grade. In 29% of cases rPCPAs were identified on the initial angiogram. In 57% of cases, FDs were inserted within 2 days of the diagnosis. Immediate aneurysm occlusion was observed in 14% of the cases and in 71% at the first follow-up (mean 2.4 months). At mean follow-up of 33 months (range 3–72 months) one case of delayed ischemic complication occurred. Six patients had a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 and one patient had an mRS score of 4 at the latest follow-up.
Conclusions The best management for rPCPAs remains unclear, but FDs seem to have lower complication rates than other treatment options. Further studies with larger series are needed to confirm the role of FDs in rPCPA.
- flow diverter
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 Conception and design of the work: VDR and FD. Data acquisition: FS, EM, AS, FDG. Data analysis and interpretation: VDR, FS, and MR. Drafting the work: VDR, FD, and FDG. Critical revision: FD, RF, RG, and MR. Final approval: all authors. All authors have read and approved the submitted manuscript. The manuscript has not been submitted elsewhere nor published elsewhere in whole or in part.
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 for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.