Skip to main content
  • Flow Diversion Versus Conventional Endovascular Treatment for Small Unruptured Internal Carotid Artery Aneurysms: Lesser Re-canalization and Re-treatment Rate - A Single Institution Experience from th

    Final Number:

    A. Sonig MD, MS, MCh; J. M. Liu; L. Vilardo BS; S. K. Natarajan MD, MBBS, MS; S. Munich MD; L. Rangel-Castilla MD; M. Cress MD; S. Gandhi; K. Snyder MD, PhD; L. N. Hopkins MD; A. H. Siddiqui MD, PhD

    Study Design:

    Subject Category:

    Meeting: Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2015 Annual Meeting

    Introduction: Flow diverter has become the preferred treatment for large, fusiform or recurrent complex aneurysms. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of Pipeline Embolisation Device in the treatment of small, unruptured internal carotid artery (ICA) aneurysms and compare it with conventional coil embolization( primary coiling/balloon assisted or stent assisted coiling)

    Methods: IRB approval was obtained from the local Institutional board. From January 2010 to April 2013, 27 aneurysms with PED treatment and 72 aneurysms with conventional endovascular embolization were identified and included in the study. The information about patients, aneurysms, procedural complications and outcomes were carefully recorded. The efficacy and safety of treatments were analyzed and compared.

    Results: The mean patient’s age was 60.0(SD:10.24) years in the PED group and 56.04(SD13.50) years in the coil/stent-coil group (p=0.200)(Table-1). Twenty-five aneurysms (92.6%) had angiographic follow-up after the PED treatment(mean:6.99 months). In the coil/stent-coil group, the angiographic follow-up was available for 58 aneurysms (80.6%) with a mean follow-up duration of 11.43 months.92% aneurysms treated by PED had complete occlusion at the last follow up whereas 70.7% occlusion rate was seen in the coil group (p=0.046)(Table 3 and 4). In the PED cohort, none of the patient had recanalization and only 1 patient was treated with additional PED in follow-up. Where as 17.2% recanalization (p=0.028) and 10.3% of retreatment(p=0.171)(Table 2) occurred in the coil group. Procedure-related complications (Table 3) did not differ between the PED and the coil group ( p=0.232). At the last follow-up 100% patient had a mRS of 0-1 in PED cohort and 95.5% in conventional endovascular group respectively.

    Conclusions: The PED provided significantly higher complete occlusion rate than conventional-embolization, with no recanalization and significantly less retreatments with similar procedural risk. Our study has raised the pitch iun favor of PED for the treatment of small aneurysms as well.

    Patient Care: Our research has shown that treatment of small aneurysms with PED carries lesser risk for re-canalization and re treatment when compared with other conventional endovascular measures.

    Learning Objectives: By the conclusion of this session, participants should be able to: 1) Describe the importance of use of PED for small aneurysms. 2) Discuss, in small groups about the recanalization, recurrence of aneurysm treated by PED 3) Identify an effective treatment for small cerebral aneurysms.

    References: Reference 1. Saatci I, Yavuz K, Ozer C, Geyik S, Cekirge HS: Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms Using the Pipeline Flow-Diverter Embolization Device: A Single-Center Experience with Long-Term Follow-Up Results. Am J Neuroradiol 2012, 33(8):1436-1446. 2. Piano M, Valvassori L, Quilici L, Pero G, Boccardi E: Midterm and long-term follow-up of cerebral aneurysms treated with flow diverter devices: a single-center experience. Journal of neurosurgery 2013, 118(2):408-416. 3. Lylyk P, Miranda C, Ceratto R, Ferrario A, Scrivano E, Luna HR, Berez AL, Tran Q, Nelson PK, Fiorella D: Curative endovascular reconstruction of cerebral aneurysms with the pipeline embolization device: the Buenos Aires experience. Neurosurgery 2009, 64(4):632-642; discussion 642-633; quiz N636. 4. Monteith SJ, Tsimpas A, Dumont AS, Tjoumakaris S, Gonzalez LF, Rosenwasser RH, Jabbour P: Endovascular treatment of fusiform cerebral aneurysms with the Pipeline Embolization Device. Journal of neurosurgery 2014, 120(4):945-954. 5. Becske T, Kallmes DF, Saatci I, McDougall CG, Szikora I, Lanzino G, Moran CJ, Woo HH, Lopes DK, Berez AL et al: Pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms: results from a multicenter clinical trial. Radiology 2013, 267(3):858-868. 6. Zanaty M, Chalouhi N, Starke RM, Barros G, Saigh MP, Schwartz EW, Ajiboye N, Tjoumakaris SI, Hasan D, Rosenwasser RH et al: Flow diversion versus conventional treatment for carotid cavernous aneurysms. Stroke 2014, 45(9):2656-2661. 7. Chalouhi N, Tjoumakaris S, Starke RM, Gonzalez LF, Randazzo C, Hasan D, McMahon JF, Singhal S, Moukarzel LA, Dumont AS et al: Comparison of flow diversion and coiling in large unruptured intracranial saccular aneurysms. Stroke 2013, 44(8):2150-2154. 8. Lanzino G, Crobeddu E, Cloft HJ, Hanel R, Kallmes DF: Efficacy and safety of flow diversion for paraclinoid aneurysms: a matched-pair analysis compared with standard endovascular approaches. AJNR American journal of neuroradiology 2012, 33(11):2158-2161. 9. Durst C, Starke R, Gingras J, Hixson H, Liu K, Crowley R, Jensen M, Evans A, Gaughen J: E-037 single center comparison of ophthalmic aneurysm treatment using pipeline embolization device versus coil embolization. J Neurointerv Surg 2014, 6 Suppl 1:A54-55. 10. Chalouhi N, Zanaty M, Whiting A, Yang S, Tjoumakaris S, Hasan D, Starke R, Hann M, Hammer C, Kung D et al: E-020 safety and efficacy of the pipeline embolization device in 100 small intracranial aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg 2014, 6 Suppl 1:A46-47. 11. Chalouhi N, Starke RM, Yang S, Bovenzi CD, Tjoumakaris S, Hasan D, Gonzalez LF, Rosenwasser R, Jabbour P: Extending the indications of flow diversion to small, unruptured, saccular aneurysms of the anterior circulation. Stroke 2014, 45(1):54-58. 12. Lin LM, Colby GP, Kim JE, Huang J, Tamargo RJ, Coon AL: Immediate and follow-up results for 44 consecutive cases of small (<10 mm) internal carotid artery aneurysms treated with the pipeline embolization device. Surgical neurology international 2013, 4:114. 13. Chalouhi N CR, Starke RM, Jabbour P, Tjoumakaris S, Dumont AS, Rosenwasser RH, Gonzalez LF: Treatment of recurrent intracranial aneurysms with the Pipeline Embolization Device. J Neurointerv Surg 2014, 6(1):19-23. 14. Phillips TJ, Wenderoth JD, Phatouros CC, Rice H, Singh TP, Devilliers L, Wycoco V, Meckel S, McAuliffe W: Safety of the pipeline embolization device in treatment of posterior circulation aneurysms. AJNR American journal of neuroradiology 2012, 33(7):1225-1231. 15. Vlak MH, Algra A, Brandenburg R, Rinkel GJ: Prevalence of unruptured intracranial aneurysms, with emphasis on sex, age, comorbidity, country, and time period: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Neurology 2011, 10(7):626-636. 16. Investigators UJ, Morita A, Kirino T, Hashi K, Aoki N, Fukuhara S, Hashimoto N, Nakayama T, Sakai M, Teramoto A et al: The natural course of unruptured cerebral aneurysms in a Japanese cohort. The New England journal of medicine 2012, 366(26):2474-2482. 17. Brinjikji W, Lanzino G, Cloft HJ, Rabinstein A, Kallmes DF: Endovascular treatment of very small (3 mm or smaller) intracranial aneurysms: report of a consecutive series and a meta-analysis. Stroke 2010, 41(1):116-121. 18. Nguyen TN, Raymond J, Guilbert F, Roy D, Berube MD, Mahmoud M, Weill A: Association of endovascular therapy of very small ruptured aneurysms with higher rates of procedure-related rupture. Journal of neurosurgery 2008, 108(6):1088-1092. 19. Sluzewski M, Bosch JA, van Rooij WJ, Nijssen PC, Wijnalda D: Rupture of intracranial aneurysms during treatment with Guglielmi detachable coils: incidence, outcome, and risk factors. Journal of neurosurgery 2001, 94(2):238-240. 20. Ferns SP, Sprengers ME, van Rooij WJ, Rinkel GJ, van Rijn JC, Bipat S, Sluzewski M, Majoie CB: Coiling of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review on initial occlusion and reopening and retreatment rates. Stroke 2009, 40(8):e523-529. 21. Chalouhi N, Jabbour P, Singhal S, Drueding R, Starke RM, Dalyai RT, Tjoumakaris S, Gonzalez LF, Dumont AS, Rosenwasser R et al: Stent-assisted coiling of intracranial aneurysms: predictors of complications, recanalization, and outcome in 508 cases. Stroke 2013, 44(5):1348-1353. 22. Raymond J, Guilbert F, Weill A, Georganos SA, Juravsky L, Lambert A, Lamoureux J, Chagnon M, Roy D: Long-term angiographic recurrences after selective endovascular treatment of aneurysms with detachable coils. Stroke 2003, 34(6):1398-1403. 23. Im SH, Han MH, Kwon OK, Kwon BJ, Kim SH, Kim JE, Oh CW: Endovascular coil embolization of 435 small asymptomatic unruptured intracranial aneurysms: procedural morbidity and patient outcome. AJNR American journal of neuroradiology 2009, 30(1):79-84. 24. Oishi H, Yamamoto M, Shimizu T, Yoshida K, Arai H: Endovascular therapy of 500 small asymptomatic unruptured intracranial aneurysms. AJNR American journal of neuroradiology 2012, 33(5):958-964. 25. McAuliffe W, Wycoco V, Rice H, Phatouros C, Singh TJ, Wenderoth J: Immediate and midterm results following treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms with the pipeline embolization device. AJNR American journal of neuroradiology 2012, 33(1):164-170. 26. Piotin M, Bartolini B, Redjem H, Pistocchi S, Blanc R: O-028 endovascular treatment of small-unruptured cerebral aneurysms with flow diverters. J Neurointerv Surg 2014, 6 Suppl 1:A15. 27. Kulcsar Z, Houdart E, Bonafe A, Parker G, Millar J, Goddard AJ, Renowden S, Gal G, Turowski B, Mitchell K et al: Intra-aneurysmal thrombosis as a possible cause of delayed aneurysm rupture after flow-diversion treatment. AJNR American journal of neuroradiology 2011, 32(1):20-25. 28. Siddiqui AH, Kan P, Abla AA, Hopkins LN, Levy EI: Complications after treatment with pipeline embolization for giant distal intracranial aneurysms with or without coil embolization. Neurosurgery 2012, 71(2):E509-513; discussion E513. 29. Brinjikji W, Murad MH, Lanzino G, Cloft HJ, Kallmes DF: Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow diverters: a meta-analysis. Stroke 2013, 44(2):442-447. 30. Cebral JR, Mut F, Raschi M, Scrivano E, Ceratto R, Lylyk P, Putman CM: Aneurysm rupture following treatment with flow-diverting stents: computational hemodynamics analysis of treatment. AJNR American journal of neuroradiology 2011, 32(1):27-33. 31. Fargen KM, Velat GJ, Lawson MF, Mocco J, Hoh BL: Review of reported complications associated with the Pipeline Embolization Device. World neurosurgery 2012, 77(3-4):403-404. 32. Puffer RC, Kallmes DF, Cloft HJ, Lanzino G: Patency of the ophthalmic artery after flow diversion treatment of paraclinoid aneurysms. Journal of neurosurgery 2012, 116(4):892-896. 33. Brinjikji W, Lanzino G, Cloft HJ, Kallmes DF: Patency of the posterior communicating artery after flow diversion treatment of internal carotid artery aneurysms. Clinical neurology and neurosurgery 2014, 120:84-88.

We use cookies to improve the performance of our site, to analyze the traffic to our site, and to personalize your experience of the site. You can control cookies through your browser settings. Please find more information on the cookies used on our site. Privacy Policy