Flow diversion treatment of anterior communicating artery region aneurysms

Treatment of unruptured intracranial vertebral artery dissection aneurysms with Flow Diverter compared with conventional stent-assisted coiling-a single-center study

AIM

Flow diverters (FDs) are being increasingly used off-label for treatment of intracranial vertebral artery dissection aneurysms (IVADAs). However, the safety and efficacy of FDs for unruptured IVADAs remain unclear. This study was performed to investigate whether FDs-alone are safer and more effective than conventional stent-asisted coiling.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 152 patients who underwent endovascular stenting from December 2011 to December 2022. The baseline data, aneurysm characteristics, surgical details, perioperative complications, follow-up angiography, and clinical outcomes were collected and compared between patients who underwent stenting with FD-alone versus conventional stent-asisted coiling. Propensity score matching was also conducted.

RESULTS

All 152 patients underwent successful endovascular therapy. Forty patients were treated with FDs-alone, and 112 were treated with conventional stent-asisted coiling (including 62 with double stents). The complete occlusion rate was 93.75% in the FD group and 93.61% in the conventional stent group (p = 0.979). The complication rate was 5.00% in the FD group and 8.93% in the conventional stent group (p = 0.653). The in-stent restenosis rate was 3.13% in the FD group and 5.32% in the conventional stent group (p = 0.615). The procedure duration was significantly shorter in the FD than conventional stent group (p = 0.034). After propensity score matching, 37 patients with FDs were successfully matched, and the procedure duration was still significantly shorter in the FD group (p = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

FD placement is a safe and effective treatment for IVADAs. It is also a simpler procedure with a shorter operation time than conventional stent placement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2300074171 ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT06134557.

Flow diversion for the treatment of intracranial bifurcation aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Flow diversion (FD: flow diversion, flow diverter) is an endovascular treatment for many intracranial aneurysm types; however, limited reports have explored the use of FDs in bifurcation aneurysm management. We analyzed the safety and efficacy of FD for the management of intracranial bifurcation aneurysms.

METHODS

A systematic review identified original research articles that used FD for treating intracranial bifurcation aneurysms. Articles with >4 patients that reported outcomes on the use of FDs for the management of bifurcation aneurysms along the anterior communicating artery (AComA), internal carotid artery terminus (ICAt), basilar apex (BA), or middle cerebral artery bifurcation (MCAb) were included. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

19 studies were included with 522 patients harboring 534 bifurcation aneurysms (mean size 9 mm, 78% unruptured). Complete aneurysmal occlusion rate was 68% (95% CI 58.7% to 76.1%, I2=67%) at mean angiographic follow-up of 16 months. Subgroup analysis of FD as a standalone treatment estimated a complete occlusion rate of 69% (95% CI 50% to 83%, I2=38%). The total complication rate was 22% (95% CI 16.7% to 28.6%, I2=51%), largely due to an ischemic complication rate of 16% (95% CI 10.8% to 21.9%, I2=55%). The etiologies of ischemic complications were largely due to jailed artery hypoperfusion (47%) and in-stent thrombosis (38%). 7% of patients suffered permanent symptomatic complications (95% CI 4.5% to 9.8%, I2=6%).

CONCLUSION

FD treatment of bifurcation aneurysms has a modest efficacy and relatively unfavorable safety profile. Proceduralists may consider reserving FD as a treatment option if no other surgical or endovascular therapy is deemed feasible.

Safety and efficacy profile of off-label use of the Pipeline Embolization Device: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The off-label utilization of the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) is a common practice in numerous medical centers globally. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the overall outcomes of this off-label usage of PEDs.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and Scopus were searched up to February 2023 using the Nested Knowledge platform to identify studies assessing the off-label use of PEDs. Any use of PED outside of the FDA-approved indication granted in 2018 is considered off-label use. Overall angiographic occlusion rates, ischemic and hemorrhagic complications, mortality, retreatment rates, and favorable clinic outcomes were included. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the overall outcome rates of anterior cerebral artery(ACA) vs. middle cerebral artery(MCA) and anterior vs posterior circulation subgroups.

RESULTS

We included 26 studies involving a total of 1,408 patients. The overall rate of complete occlusion was 80.3 % (95 % CI= 76.0-84.1). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the rate of complete occlusion between anterior circulation (78.9 %) and posterior circulation (69.2 %) (p value=0.02). The rate of good clinical outcomes was 92.8 % (95 % CI= 88.8-95.4). The mortality rate was 1.4 % (95 % CI= 0.5-2.7). The overall rate of ischemic complications was 9.5 % (95 % CI= 7.7-11.6), with a comparable difference between anterior circulation (7.7 %) and posterior circulation (12.8 %) (p value=0.07). There was no statistically significant difference in MCA vs ACA subgroups in all parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Off-label use of PEDs can be a safe and effective treatment option for intracranial aneurysms. However, there is a need for more prospective, high-quality, non-industry-funded registry studies and randomized trials to test the efficacy and safety of off-label usage of PEDs and to expand its indications.

Safety and efficacy of the pipeline embolization device for treatment of small vs. large aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Flow diversion with the pipeline embolization device (PED) is increasingly used to treat intracranial aneurysms with high obliteration rates and low morbidity. However, long-term (≥ 1 year) angiographic and clinical outcomes still require further investigation. The aim of this study was to compare the occlusion and complication rates for small (< 10 mm) versus large (10-25 mm) aneurysms at long-term following treatment with PED. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. We conducted a comprehensive search of English language databases including Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process, and Daily, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. Our studies included a minimum of 10 patients treated with PED for small vs. large aneurysms and with at least 12 months of follow-up. The primary safety endpoint was the rate of clinical complications measured by the occurrence of symptomatic stroke (confirmed clinically and radiographically), intracranial hemorrhage, or aneurysmal rupture. The primary efficacy endpoint was the complete aneurysm occlusion rate. Our analysis included 19 studies with 1277 patients and 1493 aneurysms. Of those, 1378 aneurysms met our inclusion criteria. The mean age was 53.9 years, and most aneurysms were small (89.75%; N = 1340) in women (79.1%; N = 1010). The long-term occlusion rate was 73% (95%, CI 65 to 80%) in small compared to 84% (95%, CI 76 to 90%) in large aneurysms (p < 0.01). The symptomatic thromboembolic complication rate was 5% (95%, CI 3 to 9%) in small compared to 7% (95%, CI 4 to 13%) in large aneurysms (p = 0.01). The rupture rate was 2% vs. 4% (p = 0.92), and the rate of intracranial hemorrhage was 2% vs. 4% (p = 0.96) for small vs. large aneurysms, respectively; however, these differences were not statistically significant. The long-term occlusion rate after PED treatment is higher in large vs. small aneurysms. Symptomatic thromboembolic rates with stroke are also higher in large vs. small aneurysms. The difference in the rates of aneurysm rupture and intracranial hemorrhage was insignificant. Although the PED seems a safe and effective treatment for small and large aneurysms, further studies are required to clarify how occlusion rate and morbidity are affected by aneurysm size.

Comparison of arterial wall integration of different flow diverters in rabbits: The CICAFLOW study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

New coated flow diverters (FDs) claim antithrombotic properties and increased arterial wall integration. The aim of this study is to compare in vivo endothelial coverage of coated and uncoated FD in the context of different antiplatelet regimens.

METHODS

Different FDs (Silk Vista - SV, Pipeline with Shield technology - PED shield and Surpass Evolve - SE) were implanted in the aorta of rabbits, all 3 in each animal with 3 different antiplatelet regimens: no antiplatelet therapy, aspirin alone, or aspirin and ticagrelor. Four weeks after FD implantation, angiography, flat-panel CT, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) were performed before harvesting the aorta. Extensive histopathology analyses were performed including environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM), multiphoton microscopy (MPM) and histological staining with qualitative and/or quantitative assessment of device coverage.

RESULTS

All 23 FDs that were implanted remained patent without hyperplasia. Qualitative stent coverage assessment revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between the FD groups (p = 0.19, p = 0.45, p = 0.40, and p = 0.84 for OCT, ESEM, MPM and histology, respectively). Quantitative neointimal measurement of histological sections also showed similar results in all 3 FD groups (p = 0.70). However, there were significant differences between the 3 groups of antiplatelet regimens (p = 0.07) with a higher rate in the no antiplatelet group (p = 0.05 versus aspirin alone and p = 0.03 versus aspirin and ticagrelor).

CONCLUSION

Our study provides evidence that FD integration into the arterial wall is similar with coated (PED shield) and uncoated devices (SV, SE), regardless of the antiplatelet regimen. FD integration with specific surface coverage should be promoted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

APAFIS #2022011215518538.

Flow diverters in the treatment of unruptured vertebral artery dissecting aneurysm: A single-center experience

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of flow diverters (FD) in the treatment of vertebral artery dissecting aneurysm (VADA).

Methods

A total of 16 patients with 17 unruptured VADAs treated with FD from January 2017 to May 2021 were included. Data of clinical outcomes and radiographic examination were collected and assessed by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and O'Kelly-Marotta (OKM) grading scale.

Results

All patients were treated with a single FD. No perioperative complications occurred. The mean age was 55.1 years old. The mean size of the aneurysm was 10.4 mm. All patients had a favorable occlusion (OKM D + C3) result and the complete occlusion rate in the 6th month was 66.7% (OKM D). The mean clinical follow-up time was 7.8 months, and all patients had a good clinical outcome (mRS = 0). No procedure-related complication occurred at the last follow-up time.

Conclusion

FD is an effective and safe tool for treating unruptured VADA. Long-term prospective studies with a large sample are still needed to confirm these findings in the future.

Physiologic Flow Diversion Coiling Technique for Wide-Necked Aneurysms with an Asymmetric Bidirectional Flow at the Aneurysm Neck

PURPOSE

Wide-necked aneurysms in the circle of Willis (CoW) are prone to recur due to reciprocal bidirectional flow. We present a novel concept of coil embolization to prevent recurrence that uses physiologic flow diversion at the CoW.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled 14 patients (15 aneurysms) who underwent aneurysm coiling for wide-necked aneurysms with asymmetric bidirectional inflow into the aneurysm. Four patients had recurrent aneurysms after coiling. The concept of physiologic flow diversion included obliterating antegrade flow into the aneurysm sac as well as opposite CoW flow by performing compact coil packing with intentional protrusion out of the aneurysm neck to the communicating part.

RESULTS

Fifteen aneurysms, including 4 recurrent aneurysms, in an anterior communicating artery (n=7), posterior communicating artery (n=5), and tip of the basilar artery (n=3) were treated with coil embolization (n=10) and stent-assisted coiling (n=5). All aneurysms had a wide neck, and the mean largest diameter was 9.0 mm. The mean packing density was 45.1%. Twelve aneurysms were completely occluded, and 3 aneurysms had tiny residual neck remnants. There was neither a neurological event nor recurrence during the mean 12.5 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Wide-necked aneurysms at the CoW tend to recur. As a strategy to prevent a recurrence, physiologic flow diversion can be an option in treating wide-necked aneurysms in the CoW.