Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Safety of the Pipeline Embolization Device in Treatment of Posterior Circulation Aneurysms

Safety of the Pipeline Embolization Device in Treatment of Posterior Circulation Aneurysms BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The published results of treating internal carotid artery aneurysms with the PED do not necessarily apply to its use in the posterior circulation because disabling brain stem infarcts can be caused by occlusion of a single perforator. In this multicenter study, we assessed the safety of PED placement in the posterior circulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective case registry was maintained of all posterior circulation aneurysms treated with PEDs at 3 Australian neurointerventional centers during a 27-month period. The objective was to assess the complications and aneurysm occlusion rates associated with posterior circulation PEDs. RESULTS: Thirty-two posterior circulation aneurysms were treated in 32 patients. No deaths or poor neurologic outcomes occurred. Perforator territory infarctions occurred in 3 (14%) of the 21 patients with basilar artery aneurysms, and in all 3, a single PED was used. Two asymptomatic intracranial hematomas were recorded. No aneurysm rupture or PED thrombosis was encountered. The overall rate of permanent neurologic complications was 9.4% (3/32); all 3 patients had very mild residual symptoms and a good clinical outcome. Aneurysm occlusion was demonstrated in 85% of patients with >6 months of follow-up and 96% of patients with >1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The PED is effective in the treatment of posterior circulation aneurysms that are otherwise difficult or impossible to treat with standard endovascular or surgical techniques, and its safety is similar to that of stent-assisted coiling techniques. A higher clinical perforator infarction rate may be associated with basilar artery PEDs relative to the internal carotid artery. ABBREVIATIONS: mRS modified Rankin Scale PED Pipeline Embolization Device SFD Silk flow diverter TGA Therapeutic Goods Association WFNS World Federation of Neurological Surgeons http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Journal of Neuroradiology American Journal of Neuroradiology

Safety of the Pipeline Embolization Device in Treatment of Posterior Circulation Aneurysms

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-journal-of-neuroradiology/safety-of-the-pipeline-embolization-device-in-treatment-of-posterior-oZ3AUU52ya
Publisher
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by the American Society of Neuroradiology.
ISSN
0195-6108
eISSN
1936-959X
DOI
10.3174/ajnr.A3166
pmid
22678845
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The published results of treating internal carotid artery aneurysms with the PED do not necessarily apply to its use in the posterior circulation because disabling brain stem infarcts can be caused by occlusion of a single perforator. In this multicenter study, we assessed the safety of PED placement in the posterior circulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective case registry was maintained of all posterior circulation aneurysms treated with PEDs at 3 Australian neurointerventional centers during a 27-month period. The objective was to assess the complications and aneurysm occlusion rates associated with posterior circulation PEDs. RESULTS: Thirty-two posterior circulation aneurysms were treated in 32 patients. No deaths or poor neurologic outcomes occurred. Perforator territory infarctions occurred in 3 (14%) of the 21 patients with basilar artery aneurysms, and in all 3, a single PED was used. Two asymptomatic intracranial hematomas were recorded. No aneurysm rupture or PED thrombosis was encountered. The overall rate of permanent neurologic complications was 9.4% (3/32); all 3 patients had very mild residual symptoms and a good clinical outcome. Aneurysm occlusion was demonstrated in 85% of patients with >6 months of follow-up and 96% of patients with >1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The PED is effective in the treatment of posterior circulation aneurysms that are otherwise difficult or impossible to treat with standard endovascular or surgical techniques, and its safety is similar to that of stent-assisted coiling techniques. A higher clinical perforator infarction rate may be associated with basilar artery PEDs relative to the internal carotid artery. ABBREVIATIONS: mRS modified Rankin Scale PED Pipeline Embolization Device SFD Silk flow diverter TGA Therapeutic Goods Association WFNS World Federation of Neurological Surgeons

Journal

American Journal of NeuroradiologyAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology

Published: Aug 1, 2012

There are no references for this article.