Publication:
Long-term results and comparison of flow re-direction endoluminal device and pipeline embolization device in endovascular treatment of intracranial carotid aneurysms *

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorGÜNDOĞMUŞ, CEMAL AYDIN
dc.contributor.authorsGundogmus, Cemal A.; Sabet, Soheil; Baltacioglu, Nurten A.; Tureli, Derya; Bayri, Yasar; Baltacioglu, Feyyaz
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-12T22:56:16Z
dc.date.available2022-03-12T22:56:16Z
dc.description.abstractObjective This study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes of two flow diverters, i.e., pipeline embolization device and flow re-direction endoluminal device, in the treatment of distal carotid aneurysms. Methods A total of 138 patients with 175 aneurysms were included from February 2012 to September 2019. Ninety-nine aneurysms were treated with flow re-direction endoluminal device and 76 with pipeline embolization device. Angiographic follow-ups were at the 6th, 12th, 24th, 36th, and 60th months; the O'Kelly-Marotta grading scale was used to assess aneurysms occlusion. Outcomes of two devices were compared; possible associations regarding patient characteristics, aneurysm properties, treatment details, and adverse events were evaluated. Results The mean follow-up period was 33 months, with 10 patients lost to follow-up. Occlusion rates at the 6th and 12th months and during the last follow-up were similar for flow re-direction endoluminal device (81%, 84%, and 90%) and pipeline embolization device (82%, 85%, and 93%). Occlusion rates were also similar after stand-alone use without coiling. There was no significant difference regarding adverse event rates with a 10.9% overall complication rate, 3.6% mortality, and 0.7% permanent morbidity. All the mortality and morbidity were related to hemorrhagic complications. Device deployment failure was observed with five flow re-direction endoluminal devices and two pipeline embolization devices, whereas two severe in-stent stenoses occurred with each device. Conclusions Both flow re-direction endoluminal device and pipeline embolization device are feasible and effective in flow diversion of distal internal carotid artery aneurysms, with similar adverse events rates and aneurysm occlusion success. Aneurysm occlusion rates increase with time, while the presence of an integrated branch significantly decreases treatment success.
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/15910199211030780
dc.identifier.eissn2385-2011
dc.identifier.issn1591-0199
dc.identifier.pubmed34515551
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11424/236915
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000695263500001
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
dc.relation.ispartofINTERVENTIONAL NEURORADIOLOGY
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectAneurysm
dc.subjectflow diverter
dc.subjectflow re-direction endoluminal device
dc.subjectpipeline embolization device
dc.subjectinternal carotid artery
dc.subjectFOLLOW-UP
dc.subjectCEREBRAL ANEURYSMS
dc.subjectARTERY ANEURYSMS
dc.subjectMULTICENTER
dc.subjectEXPERIENCE
dc.subjectDIVERTORS
dc.subjectSTENT
dc.titleLong-term results and comparison of flow re-direction endoluminal device and pipeline embolization device in endovascular treatment of intracranial carotid aneurysms *
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.avesis.id40c8317f-e4f4-441f-8fd0-2e12e70c13ef
local.import.packageSS17
local.indexed.atWOS
local.indexed.atSCOPUS
local.journal.articlenumber1.59101992110308E+016
local.journal.numberofpages9
oaire.citation.titleINTERVENTIONAL NEURORADIOLOGY
relation.isAuthorOfPublication2cb86747-2d35-46df-8529-3c9eecae9a8c
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery2cb86747-2d35-46df-8529-3c9eecae9a8c

Files

Collections

Research Outputs