Multiple pipeline embolization devices improves aneurysm occlusion without increasing morbidity: A single center experience of 140 cases

INTRODUCTION

Rates of aneurysm occlusion with the pipeline embolization device (PED) has varied widely in the literature from 55.7% to 93.3% at 6 months, which may reflect a difference in technique including sizing and number of devices used.

METHODS

140 cases at our institution were retrospectively reviewed, and aneurysms treated with a single PED vs. multiple were compared.

RESULTS

Complete aneurysm occlusion was achieved in 86.9% at 6 months, 91.8% at 1 year, and 97.6% at longest follow-up. Retreatment with an additional device was required in 7 (5.1%). Major and minor complication rate within 30 days was 1.4% and 5.0%, and at greater than 30 days was 0.8% and 3.1%. Patients treated with multiple PEDs had significantly higher rates of aneurysm occlusion at 6 months (92.9% vs. 75.6%, p = 0.017) and 12 months (98.4% vs. 81.1%, p = 0.014), with no difference in complications. The two groups were similar aside from a higher number of ophthalmic and paraophthalmic aneurysms treated with multiple PEDs (23.4% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.004; and 35.1% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.020), and more posterior communicating artery and recurrent aneurysms treated with a single PED (28.3% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.001; 23.9% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.031). The use of multiple PEDs was found to be an independent predictor of aneurysm occlusion in a multivariate analysis (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of multiple PEDs for intracranial aneurysms leads to significantly higher occlusion rates without added morbidity. This benefit is particularly appropriate for ophthalmic segment aneurysms, while more distal segments with eloquent perforating branches should be managed with caution.

Transradial Approach for Deployment of a Flow Diverter for an Intracranial Aneurysm in a Patient with a Type-3 Aortic Arch

BACKGROUND

Flow diversion with the Pipeline embolization device (PED) is an effective treatment for giant and wide-neck intracranial aneurysms, but the standard transfemoral approach may not be feasible in patients with Type-3 aortic arches.

CASE REPORT

An 84-year-old woman presented with a right internal carotid artery (ICA) giant aneurysm and a Type-3 aortic arch, necessitating a transradial approach for access to the right common carotid artery. A triaxial catheter system made for a stable platform for the deployment of two telescoping PEDs to treat the patient's right ICA giant aneurysm. The procedure was technically successful, and there were no immediate complications.

CONCLUSION

The transradial approach allows for carotid access in patients with challenging aortic arches, and this report demonstrates its effectiveness for deployment of flow diverters, especially with a triaxial catheter system. The peripheral access point facilitates hemostasis, which is of great importance in patients on antiplatelet medications to prevent thrombotic complications of flow diverters.