OBJECT The optimal strategy for use of the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED, ev3 Neurovascular) has not been clearly defined. The authors examined re-treatment rates after treatment with PED alone versus PED and adjunctive coil embolization (PED/coil). METHODS The authors retrospectively examined cerebral aneurysms treated with the PED from May 2011 to March 2014. Overall, 133 patients (25 men, 108 women; mean age 60.4 years, range 23-85 years) were treated for 140 aneurysms (mean size 11.8 ± 8.3 mm) requiring 224 PEDs (mean 1.7 PEDs per patient). Sixty-eight patients (13 men, 55 women) were treated with PED alone for 73 aneurysms (mean size 10.6 ± 9.2 mm) and 65 patients (12 men, 53 women) were treated with PED/coil for 67 aneurysms (mean size 12.8 ± 7.4 mm). RESULTS Eight aneurysms in 8 patients were re-treated in the PED-alone cohort versus only 1 aneurysm in 1 patient in the PED/coil cohort for re-treatment rates of 11.8% (8/68) and 1.5% (1/65), respectively (p = 0.03). Two patients in the PED-alone cohort were re-treated due to PED contraction, while the other 6 were re-treated for persistent filling of the aneurysms. The PED/coil patient experienced continued filling of a vertebrobasilar artery aneurysm. No aneurysms in either group ruptured after treatment. CONCLUSIONS Adjunctive coil embolization during flow diversion with the PED resulted in a significantly lower re-treatment rate compared with PED alone, suggesting an added benefit with adjunctive coil embolization. This result may provide the basis for future evaluation with randomized, controlled trials.
Keywords: FDA = Food and Drug Administration; ICA = internal carotid artery; PED = Pipeline Embolization Device; PED/coil = PED and adjunctive coil embolization; Pipeline Embolization Device; aneurysms; coil embolization; flow diversion; re-treatment; vascular disorders.