Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background This multicenter study evaluated the safety and efficacy of coated flow diverters (cFDs) for the treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms.
Methods Consecutive patients treated with different cFDs for ruptured aneurysms under tirofiban at eight neurovascular centers between 2016 and 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The majority of patients were loaded with dual antiplatelet therapy after the treatment. Aneurysm occlusion was determined using the O'Kelly-Marotta (OKM) grading scale. Primary outcome measures were major procedural complications and aneurysmal rebleeding during hospitalization.
Results The study included 60 aneurysms (posterior circulation: 28 (47%)) with a mean size of 5.8±4.7 mm. Aneurysm morphology was saccular in 28 (47%), blister-like in 12 (20%), dissecting in 13 (22%), and fusiform in 7 (12%). Technical success was 100% with a mean of 1.1 cFDs implanted per aneurysm. Adjunctive coiling was performed in 11 (18%) aneurysms. Immediate contrast retention was observed in 45 (75%) aneurysms. There was 1 (2%) major procedural complication (a major stroke, eventually leading to death) and no aneurysmal rebleeding. A good outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0–2) was achieved in 40 (67%) patients. At a mean follow-up of 6 months, 27/34 (79%) aneurysms were completely occluded (OKM D), 3/34 (9%) had an entry remnant (OKM C), and 4/34 (12%) had residual filling (OKM A or B). There was 1 (3%) severe in-stent stenosis during follow-up that was treated with balloon angioplasty.
Conclusions Treatment of ruptured aneurysms with cFDs was reasonably safe and efficient and thus represents a valid treatment option, especially for complex cases.
- Aneurysm
- Angiography
- Device
- Flow Diverter
- Intervention
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. All data will be made available upon request in an anonymized manner.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. All data will be made available upon request in an anonymized manner.
Footnotes
Twitter @o_nikoubashman
Contributors LG, SH, DFV, CW, ON, HS, CG, DW, MK, MP, ES, DZ, JK, LP, MS, GB, TL, BT, FD, CD, MW, and MAM acquired the data. LG and CK developed the project, analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. LG is responsible for the overall content as guarantor. All authors revised the paper critically for important intellectual content and gave final approval for the version to be published. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
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 CK serves as consultant for Acandis GmbH (Pforzheim, Germany) and as proctor for MicroVention Inc./Sequent Medical (Aliso Viejo, CA, USA). TL previously served as proctor for MicroVention Inc./Sequent Medical (Aliso Viejo, CA, USA), CERUS Endovascular (Fremont, CA, USA), Phenox (Bochum, Germany), Stryker (Kalamazoo, MI, USA), and Medtronic (Dublin, Ireland). DZ is on the speaker’s bureau of Philips (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and lecturer for Amboss GmbH (Cologne, Germany). FD serves as consultant/ proctor for MicroVention Inc./Sequent Medical, Balt (Irvine, CA, USA), Cerenovus/Johnson&Johnson (Irvine, CA, USA); received speakers honoraria from Cerenovus/ Johnson&Johnson, Acandis, Asahi (Tokyo, Japan), Q Apel (Fremont, CA, USA), Penumbra (Alameda, CA, USA), Medtronic, Stryker; received scientific grants from Cerenovus/ Johnson&Johnson. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.