22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Safety and Effectiveness of the Pipeline Flex Embolization Device With Shield Technology for the Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms: Midterm Results From a Multicenter Study

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          BACKGROUND

          The safety and efficacy of the first generation of the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED; Medtronic Inc) have been proven in large case series. Ischemic events are one of the most common complications following treatment of aneurysms with flow diverters. The new PED Flex with Shield technology (PED Shield; Medtronic Inc) was introduced to minimize the rate of complications.

          OBJECTIVE

          To evaluate the outcomes of patients harboring aneurysms treated with the PED Shield.

          METHODS

          This was an observational, prospective, single-arm multicenter study of patients treated with the PED Shield. The primary safety endpoint was the absence of major neurological complications and death. The secondary effectiveness endpoint was angiographic occlusion at 6 and 12 mo. Technical complications were also reported.

          RESULTS

          Between November 2017 and December 2018, 151 patients from 7 centers with 182 aneurysms were enrolled. The mean aneurysm size was 7.0 mm; 27 (14.8%) aneurysms were large, and 7 (3.8%) were giant. In 141 of 151 patients (93.4%), the primary endpoint was reached. The overall rate of periprocedural complications was 7.3%. Of the aneurysms, 79.7% met the study's secondary endpoint of complete occlusion at 6 mo and 85.3% at 12 mo.

          CONCLUSION

          The PED Shield is a safe and effective treatment for intracranial aneurysms. The results regarding total occlusion and ischemic complications did not differ from those obtained in case series using previous versions of the PED. Long-term follow-up and comparative studies are required to provide stronger conclusions regarding the reduced thrombogenicity of this device.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms: results from a multicenter clinical trial.

          To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED; ev3/Covidien, Irvine, Calif) in the treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms. The Pipeline for Uncoilable or Failed Aneurysms is a multicenter, prospective, interventional, single-arm trial of PED for the treatment of uncoilable or failed aneurysms of the internal carotid artery. Institutional review board approval of the HIPAA-compliant study protocol was obtained from each center. After providing informed consent, 108 patients with recently unruptured large and giant wide-necked aneurysms were enrolled in the study. The primary effectiveness endpoint was angiographic evaluation that demonstrated complete aneurysm occlusion and absence of major stenosis at 180 days. The primary safety endpoint was occurrence of major ipsilateral stroke or neurologic death at 180 days. PED placement was technically successful in 107 of 108 patients (99.1%). Mean aneurysm size was 18.2 mm; 22 aneurysms (20.4%) were giant (>25 mm). Of the 106 aneurysms, 78 met the study's primary effectiveness endpoint (73.6%; 95% posterior probability interval: 64.4%-81.0%). Six of the 107 patients in the safety cohort experienced a major ipsilateral stroke or neurologic death (5.6%; 95% posterior probability interval: 2.6%-11.7%). PED offers a reasonably safe and effective treatment of large or giant intracranial internal carotid artery aneurysms, demonstrated by high rates of complete aneurysm occlusion and low rates of adverse neurologic events; even in aneurysms failing previous alternative treatments.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The pipeline embolization device for the intracranial treatment of aneurysms trial.

            Endoluminal reconstruction with flow diverting devices represents a novel constructive technique for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms. We present the results of the first prospective multicenter trial of a flow-diverting construct for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Patients with unruptured aneurysms that were wide-necked (> 4 mm), had unfavorable dome/neck ratios (<1.5), or had failed previous therapy were enrolled in the PITA trial between January and May 2007 at 4 (3 European and 1 South American) centers. Aneurysms were treated with the PED with or without adjunctive coil embolization. All patients underwent clinical evaluation at 30 and 180 days and conventional angiography 180 days after treatment. Angiographic results were adjudicated by an experienced neuroradiologist at a nonparticipating site. Thirty-one patients with 31 intracranial aneurysms (6 men; 42-76 years of age; average age, 54.6 years) were treated during the study period. Twenty-eight aneurysms arose from the ICA (5 cavernous, 15 parophthalmic, 4 superior hypophyseal, and 4 posterior communicating segments), 1 from the MCA, 1 from the vertebral artery, and 1 from the vertebrobasilar junction. Mean aneurysm size was 11.5 mm, and mean neck size was 5.8 mm. Twelve (38.7%) aneurysms had failed (or recurred after) a previous endovascular treatment. PED placement was technically successful in 30 of 31 patients (96.8%). Most aneurysms were treated with either 1 (n = 18) or 2 (n = 11) PEDs. Fifteen aneurysms (48.4%) were treated with a PED alone, while 16 were treated with both PED and embolization coils. Two patients experienced major periprocedural stroke. Follow-up angiography demonstrated complete aneurysm occlusion in 28 (93.3%) of the 30 patients who underwent angiographic follow-up. No significant in-construct stenosis (≥ 50%) was identified at follow-up angiography. Intracranial aneurysm treatment with the PED is technically feasible and can be achieved with a safety profile analogous to that reported for stent-supported coil embolization. PED treatment elicited a very high rate (93%) of complete angiographic occlusion at 6 months in a population of the most challenging anatomic subtypes of cerebral aneurysms.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              International retrospective study of the pipeline embolization device: a multicenter aneurysm treatment study.

              Flow diverters are increasingly used in the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Our aim was to determine neurologic complication rates following Pipeline Embolization Device placement for intracranial aneurysm treatment in a real-world setting.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Neurosurgery
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0148-396X
                1524-4040
                July 2020
                July 01 2020
                September 10 2019
                July 2020
                July 01 2020
                September 10 2019
                : 87
                : 1
                : 104-111
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, Felício Rocho Hospital, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
                [2 ]Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, Americas Medical Services, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
                [3 ]Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, Hospital Beneficiência Portuguesa, São Paulo, Brazil
                [4 ]Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil
                [5 ]Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil
                [6 ]Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, AngioRad, Recife, Brazil
                [7 ]Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, Hospital de Clínicas, Passo Fundo, Brazil
                Article
                10.1093/neuros/nyz356
                31504821
                fb59b95d-c5e4-43aa-b537-082ed5c0487e
                © 2019

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article