Download PDFPDF
Original research
Delayed enhancing lesions after coil embolization of aneurysms: clinical experience and benchtop analyses
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Re:Comment on “Delayed enhancing lesions after coil embolization of aneurysms: clinical experience and benchtop analyses”
    • Se Won Oh, Radiologist Department of Radiology, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Cheonan, Korea
    • Other Contributors:
      • Dong Joon Kim, Radiologist, Neurointerventionist

    We would like to thank Dr. Shotar and colleagues for their interest in our article. As highlighted by Dr. Shotar, delayed enhancing lesions (DEL) after coil embolization of aneurysm are suspected as a result of foreign body reaction 1-5. We agree with their opinion that the catheter coating of the inner wall of guiding catheter and/or the outer wall of microcatheter may be the source of foreign body. However, according to our experiences and analysis, it is our opinion that the coating material of the inner wall of microcatheter may also be the source.
    Dr Shotar suggests that the distribution of the MR lesions in the territory of the parent artery (i.e.: ICA) in our series suggests the guiding catheter as the culprit. However, in all our cases 6, the aneurysms were located at the distal ICA (Ophthalmic artery, IC-anterior choroidal artery, superior hypophyseal artery). Thus, we believe that the distribution of the DELs on MR is not in conflict with our claim that the inner wall of the microcatheter is the source. Foreign body fragments from the microcatheter probably migrated into the aneurysmal sac during multiple coil introduction attempts under unusual friction and were swept downstream. Our benchtop analyses also support this finding.
    Regarding Dr Shotar’s suggestion that "the patient treated with the microcatheter that showed coating fragments at the location of the friction on bench tests did not have DELs", this microcatheter was withdrawn imme...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Comment on “Delayed enhancing lesions after coil embolization of aneurysms: clinical experience and benchtop analyses”
    • Eimad Shotar, Interventional Neuroradiologist Department of Interventional Neuroradiology Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital. APHP. Paris VI University. Paris. FRANCE.
    • Other Contributors:
      • Nader-Antoine Sourour, Interventional Neuroradiologist
      • Frédéric Clarençon, Interventional Neuroradiologist

    We read with interest the article entitled: “Delayed enhancing lesions after coil embolization of aneurysms: clinical experience and benchtop analyses” by Oh et al [1]. This interesting case series deals with a recently described complication of intracranial endovascular procedures [2–8]: delayed enhancing lesions (DELs), also known as NICE (non-ischemic cerebral enhancing) lesions [8]. This rare complication consists in delayed appearance of cortical leptomeningeal enhancement associated with vasogenic subcortical edema [8]. The authors describe 3 more cases, in addition to the 19 previously reported [8]. We congratulate the authors for their efforts to understand the mechanism of this rare complication by performing benchtop tests.
    Numerous hypotheses have been proposed to explain this complication.
    First, an allergic reaction to nickel has been suggested [4,7]. In a series we recently published in Neuroradiology [8], we did not find any allergic reaction to the devices used for the embolization of the patients who presented NICE lesions. The fact that, in the series of Oh et al [1], none of the three patients had an allergic background, seems to confirm the absence of any relationship between these lesions and allergy.
    The second hypothesis is a reaction to foreign bodies (catheter coating) released during the embolization. We do believe that, according to our experience [8] and to the data of the literature [2,3,5,6], these lesions are more likely to...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.