Enterprise stents versus low-profile visualized intraluminal support stents for stent-assisted coiling of unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms

Treatment of Paraclinoid Aneurysms With Stent-Assisted Coiling Versus Flow Diversion Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The stent-assisted coiling (SAC) and flow-diverter stent (FDS) techniques are widely used in the endovascular treatment of paraclinoid aneurysms. This article compares the occlusion rate, periprocedural complications, and clinical outcomes of SAC and FDSs.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2020, a systematic search of electronic databases identified 2283 articles for screening. After the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, data were extracted for a meta-analysis of the proportions.

RESULTS

Of 23 articles containing 4 comparative studies, 27 cohorts were included, and 1208 patients with 1328 aneurysms were analyzed: In 10 cohorts, 381 (28.7%) patients were treated with SAC, whereas in 17 cohorts, 947 (71.3%) patients were treated with FDSs. In the comparative studies, no significance was observed between the 2 treatments. In the pooled cohorts, complete occlusion was achieved in 85% of aneurysms after treatment with FDSs (95% CI: 0.81-0.88, I2=34.7%) and 76% after treatment with SAC (95% CI: 0.70-0.81, I2=16.6%); the subgroup analysis was statistically significant (P=0.003). New visual complications were observed in 5% of the FDS-treated group (95% CI: 0.02-0.09, I2=76.9%) and in 1% of the SAC-treated group (95% CI: 0.00-0.02, I2=0%); the subgroup analysis was statistically significant (P=0.018). Other observational indices, including total procedure-related complications; hemorrhagic, thrombotic, and ischemic complications; permanent morbidities, and favorable neurological outcomes, showed no statistical significance between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with SAC, treatment with FDSs may have a higher complete occlusion rate at follow-up. The similarly low rates for procedure-related complications and permanent morbidities indicate that both treatments are safe. A higher rate of new visual complications was noted in the FDS-treated group. Further research is required for direct comparisons along with a complete ophthalmological examination.

Comparison of LVIS and Enterprise stent-assisted coiling embolization for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a propensity score-matched cohort study

The role of a low-profile visualized intraluminal support stent (LVIS) and Enterprise in the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms is well established. Although previous studies have investigated one single type of stent for the treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms (RIA), the safety and efficacy between the two types of stents has not been fully explored. Herein we conducted a study to compare the outcomes of the two stents for treatment of RIA. This is a prospective registry database of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) patients admitted to a single institution between 2018 and 2021. We collected patient baseline information, secondary complications, follow-up angiographic data, long-term prognostic outcomes, and conducted propensity score matching (PSM) analysis with 1:1 ratio and a multivariable logistic regression to compare the outcomes of the two types of stents. A total of 231 patients with RIAs were included in this study, with 108 treated using the LVIS device and 123 treated using the Enterprise device. Before PSM analysis, only the incidence of poor prognosis after 12 months was higher in the Enterprise group comparing to the LVIS group (20% vs. 10%, P = 0.049). After PSM analysis, there was a higher occurrence of delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) in the Enterprise group compared to the LVIS group (odds ratio [OR] 3.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.20-13.01], P = 0.024). However, no significant difference in prognosis was observed after PSM adjustment. Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed that patients with female (P = 0.019), hypertension (P = 0.048), and anterior circulation aneurysms (P = 0.019) receiving the Enterprise device had a higher risk of DCI. The overall efficacy of LVIS and Enterprise in the treatment of RIA is comparable, while the incidence of DCI in the LVIS group is lower than that in the Enterprise group after PSM analysis. Registration number: NCT05738083 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ).

The Enterprise stent…still useful after all these years

BACKGROUND

The Enterprise stent (Codman Neuro, Massachusetts, USA) received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2007 for stent-assisted coiling (SAC). Since its introduction, newer stents and devices for aneurysm treatment have been developed resulting in a shift in the utilization of this stent from SAC to other off-label indications.

OBJECTIVE

To describe our experience with the Enterprise stent being used for SAC and other off-label indications.

METHODS

This is a multi-center retrospective review of the use of the Enterprise stent between 2018 and 2023. All patients in which the Enterprise stent was successfully deployed were included in the study.

RESULTS

Our study cohort comprised of 194 patients, mostly females (n = 112, 57.7%), with a mean age of 63.2 years ± 14.3. The Enterprise stent was used for SAC in only 24 (12.4%) patients and was used for rescue stenting in stroke in 101 patients (52.1%), treatment of intracranial stenosis in 53 patients (27.3%), treatment of in-stent stenosis in 1 patient (0.5%), and for treatment of dissections in 15 patients (7.7%). From 2018 to 2023, the use of Enterprise stents for SAC significantly decreased (p < 0.0001) while the use of Enterprise stents for non-SAC purposes was insignificantly variable (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the Enterprise stent remains a reliable tool in neuroendovascular procedures, even if its original intended use has been supplanted by other devices.