Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Endovascular treatment of ophthalmic artery aneurysms: ophthalmic artery patency following flow diversion versus coil embolization
  1. Christopher R Durst1,
  2. Robert M Starke2,
  3. David Clopton1,
  4. H Robert Hixson1,
  5. Paul J Schmitt2,
  6. Jean M Gingras1,
  7. Dale Ding2,
  8. Kenneth C Liu2,
  9. R Webster Crowley2,
  10. Mary E Jensen1,
  11. Avery J Evans1,
  12. John Gaughen1
  1. 1Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
  2. 2Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Christopher R Durst, Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health Systems, P O Box 800170, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA; cdurst{at}


Background and purpose The Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) has been shown to effectively treat complex internal carotid artery aneurysms while maintaining patency of covered side branches. The purpose of this retrospective matched cohort study is to evaluate the effect of flow diversion on the patency of the ophthalmic artery when treating ophthalmic artery aneurysms.

Methods A retrospective review of our prospectively collected institutional database identified 19 ophthalmic artery aneurysms treated with a PED. These were matched according to aneurysm diameter in a 1:2 fashion to ophthalmic artery aneurysms treated via coil embolization, although it is important to note that there was a statistically significance difference in the neck diameter between the two groups (p=0.045). Clinical and angiographic outcomes were recorded and analyzed.

Results On follow-up angiography, decreased flow through the ophthalmic artery was observed in 26% of the PED cohort and 0% of the coil embolization cohort (p=0.003). No ophthalmologic complications were noted in either cohort. Complete occlusion at 12 months was more common following PED treatment than coil embolization (74% vs 47%; p=0.089), although lower than reported in previous trials. This may be due to inflow into the ophthalmic artery keeping the aneurysm patent. Retreatments were more common following coil embolization than PED (24% vs 11%), but this was not significant (p=0.304). Permanent morbidity rates were not significantly different between the PED (11%) and coil embolization (3%) cohorts (p=0.255).

Conclusions Our results suggest that ophthalmic artery aneurysms may be adequately and safely treated with either the PED or coil embolization. However, treatment with the PED carries a higher risk of impeding flow to the ophthalmic artery, although this did not result in clinical sequelae in the current study.

  • Aneurysm
  • Angiography
  • Blood Flow
  • Coil
  • Flow Diverter

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.