» Articles » PMID: 26272972

Flow Diversion Versus Standard Endovascular Techniques for the Treatment of Unruptured Carotid-Ophthalmic Aneurysms

Overview
Specialty Neurology
Date 2015 Aug 15
PMID 26272972
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Purpose: Over the past few years, flow diversion has been increasingly adopted for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms, especially in the paraclinoid and paraophthalmic carotid segment. We compared clinical and angiographic outcomes and complication rates in 2 groups of patients with unruptured carotid-ophthalmic aneurysms treated for 7 years by either standard coil-based techniques or flow diversion.

Materials And Methods: From February 2006 to December 2013, 162 unruptured carotid-ophthalmic aneurysms were treated endovascularly in 138 patients. Sixty-seven aneurysms were treated by coil-based techniques in 61 patients. Flow diverters were deployed in 95 unruptured aneurysms (77 patients), with additional coiling in 27 patients. Complication rates, clinical outcome, and immediate and long-term angiographic results were retrospectively analyzed.

Results: No procedure-related deaths occurred. Four procedure-related thromboembolic events (6.6%) leading to permanent morbidity in 1 case (1.6%) occurred in the coiling group. Neurologic complications were observed in 6 patients (7.8%) in the flow-diversion group, resulting in 3.9% permanent morbidity. No statistically significant difference was found between complication (P = .9) and morbidity rates (P = .6). In the coiling group (median follow-up, 31.5 ± 24.5 months), recanalization occurred at 1 year in 23/50 (54%) aneurysms and 27/55 aneurysms (50.9%) at the latest follow-up, leading to retreatment in 6 patients (9%). In the flow-diversion group (mean follow-up, 13.5 ± 10.8 months), 85.3% (35/41) of all aneurysms were occluded after 12 months, and 74.6% (50/67) on latest follow-up. The retreatment rate was 2.1%. Occlusion rates between the 2 groups differed significantly at 12 months (P < .001) and at the latest follow-up (P < .005).

Conclusions: Our retrospective analysis shows better long-term occlusion of carotid-ophthalmic aneurysms after use of flow diverters compared with standard coil-based techniques, without significant differences in permanent morbidity.

Citing Articles

An increase in flow-diverter oversizing values as an independent risk factor for developing more severe in-stent stenosis. A retrospective single-center study based on flow diversion of supraclinoid internal carotid artery aneurysms.

Vladev G, Sirakov A, Matanov S, Sirakova K, Ninov K, Sirakov S Front Neurol. 2025; 15():1499732.

PMID: 39845941 PMC: 11750651. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1499732.


Pipeline Embolization device for the treatment of unruptured intracranial saccular aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term outcomes.

Rios-Zermeno J, Ghaith A, Perez-Vega C, Greco E, Michaelides L, El Hajj V Neurosurg Rev. 2024; 47(1):813.

PMID: 39441223 DOI: 10.1007/s10143-024-03040-5.


Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Endovascular Therapy Effectiveness for Unruptured Saccular Intracranial Aneurysms.

Pineda-Castillo S, Jones E, Laurence K, Thoendel L, Cabaniss T, Zhao Y Stroke Vasc Interv Neurol. 2024; 4(2).

PMID: 38846323 PMC: 11152505. DOI: 10.1161/SVIN.123.001118.


Efficacy of pipeline embolization device vs. traditional coils in embolization of intracranial aneurysms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Li W, Xiao Z, Zhao K, Yang S, Zhang Y, Li B Front Neurol. 2022; 13:978602.

PMID: 36247783 PMC: 9558282. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.978602.


Endovascular treatment of aneurysms of the paraophthalmic segment of the internal carotid artery: Current status.

Wang Y, Yu J Front Neurol. 2022; 13:913704.

PMID: 36188411 PMC: 9523143. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.913704.


References
1.
Chalouhi N, Satti S, Tjoumakaris S, Dumont A, Gonzalez L, Rosenwasser R . Delayed migration of a pipeline embolization device. Neurosurgery. 2012; 72(2 Suppl Operative):ons229-34. DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31827e5870. View

2.
Burrows A, Cloft H, Kallmes D, Lanzino G . Periprocedural and mid-term technical and clinical events after flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg. 2014; 7(9):646-51. DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011184. View

3.
Zanaty M, Chalouhi N, Barros G, Schwartz E, Saigh M, Starke R . Flow-diversion for ophthalmic segment aneurysms. Neurosurgery. 2015; 76(3):286-9. DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000607. View

4.
Lylyk P, Miranda C, Ceratto R, Ferrario A, Scrivano E, Luna H . Curative endovascular reconstruction of cerebral aneurysms with the pipeline embolization device: the Buenos Aires experience. Neurosurgery. 2009; 64(4):632-42. DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000339109.98070.65. View

5.
Chalouhi N, Starke R, Yang S, Bovenzi C, Tjoumakaris S, Hasan D . Extending the indications of flow diversion to small, unruptured, saccular aneurysms of the anterior circulation. Stroke. 2013; 45(1):54-8. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.003038. View