Reconsiderations on the use of pipeline embolization device in the treatment of intracerebral aneurysms with special angioarchitecture: fetal PCA, AVM, V-B junction and DAVF

Clinical outcomes of pipeline embolization devices with shield technology for treating intracranial aneurysms

INTRODUCTION

As a common endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms, the pipeline embolization device (PED) is considered a standard treatment option, especially for large, giant, wide-necked, or dissecting aneurysms. A layer of phosphorylcholine biocompatible polymer added to the surface of the PED can substantially improve this technology. This PED with shield technology (pipeline shield) is relatively novel; its early technical success and safety have been reported. We conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of evaluating the efficacy and safety of the pipeline shield.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases, following the preferred reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

We selected five prospective and two retrospective studies for review. A total of 572 aneurysms were included; of these, 506 (88.5%) were unruptured. The antiplatelet regimens were heterogeneous. The rate of perioperative and postoperative complications was 11.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.5-18.9%]. The adequate occlusion rate at 6 months was 73.9% (95% CI: 69.1-78.7%). The adequate occlusion rate of more than 12 months was 80.9% (95% CI: 75.1-86.1%). The mortality rate was 0.7% (95% CI: 0.2-1.5%). Subgroup analyses showed that aneurysm rupture status had no effect on aneurysm occlusion rate, patient morbidity, or mortality.

CONCLUSION

This review demonstrates the safety and efficacy of the pipeline shield for treating intracranial aneurysms. However, direct comparisons of the pipeline shield with other flow diverters are needed to better understand the relative safety and effectiveness of different devices.

Efficacy and safety of flow diverters in posterior circulation aneurysms and comparison with their efficacy in anterior circulation aneurysms: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of flow-diverter stents (FDs) in the management of posterior circulation cerebral aneurysms and compare FD efficacy between anterior and posterior circulation aneurysms.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for relevant studies through March 2020. Studies assessing FDs for posterior circulation aneurysms that included ≥20 treated aneurysms were included. Moreover, the studies compared FD efficacy between anterior and posterior circulation aneurysms were included. Data regarding angiographic aneurysmal occlusion, procedural complications, mortality, and morbidity were extracted and pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis model.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with a total of 659 patients and 676 posterior circulation aneurysms were included. The pooled rate of aneurysmal occlusion at long-term angiographic follow-up was 78% [95% confidence interval (CI), 71-85]. The pooled rates of intraparenchymal hemorrhage, ischemia, and procedure-related mortality and neurological morbidity were 2%, 8%, 7%, and 6%, respectively. Complete occlusion occurred in 82.4% of the posterior circulation aneurysm subgroup and 77.5% of the anterior circulation aneurysm subgroup. The difference was not significant (relative risk 1.01; 95% CI, 0.86-1.19; p = 0.91). Regression analysis showed that elderly patients and females had higher morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Posterior circulation aneurysms can be effectively treated with FDs with comparable occlusion rates to those in anterior circulation aneurysms. However, periprocedural complications are not negligible.