The introduction of flow diverters (FDs) in 2007 greatly enhanced the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Here, we present our long-term clinical experience in treating unruptured intracranial aneurysms with FDs.
Methods
107 patients with unruptured aneurysms and treated with an FD between 2010 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Aneurysm occlusion, procedural complications, and clinical outcome were evaluated.
Results
Angiographic follow-up was available for 93 patients with a mean long-term follow-up time of 28.4 ± 21.6 months. Additional coiling was performed in 15.1% of patients (n = 14). Adequate aneurysm occlusion (Kamran grades 3 and 4) at long-term follow-up was achieved in 94.6% of patients (n = 88). 3.2% (n = 3) required endovascular retreatment since the last follow-up showed a lack of aneurysm occlusion (Kamran grade 0) due to a foreshortening of the FD. Incomplete opening of the FD and parent vessel occlusion was seen in 1.1% (n = 1) and 3.2% (n = 3) of patients, respectively. In-stent stenosis was observed in 57% (n = 53) of cases at short-term follow-up and 22.6% (n = 21) at long-term, which were moderate and asymptomatic overall. In-stent stenosis decreased significantly between short- and long-term follow-ups (31.4 ± 17.0% vs 9.7 ± 13.6%, respectively; p ≤ 0.001). Thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events occurred in 7.5% (n = 7) and 1.1% (n = 1) of patients, respectively. Good clinical outcome (modified Rankin scale: 0–2) was obtained in 97.8% (n = 91) leading to an overall treatment-related morbidity of 2.2% (n = 2). There was no procedural mortality.
Conclusion
Our study shows that FD treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms is effective and safe with high occlusion rates and low rates of permanent morbidity at long-term follow-up.
GeremiaGHaklinMBrenneckeL. Embolization of experimentally created aneurysms with intravascular stent devices. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol1994; 15: 1223–1231.
2.
KallmesDFDingY-HDaiD, et al.A new endoluminal, flow-disrupting device for treatment of saccular aneurysms. Stroke2007; 38: 2346–2352. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.479576.
3.
PoncyljuszWSaganLSafranowK, et al.Initial experience with implantation of novel dual layer flow-diverter device FRED. Wideochir Inne Tech Malo Inwazyjne2013; 3: 258–264. DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2011.35794.
4.
FischerSAguilar-PérezMHenkesE, et al.Initial experience with p64: a novel mechanically detachable flow diverter for the treatment of intracranial saccular sidewall aneurysms. Am J Neuroradiol2015; 36: 2082–2089. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4420.
5.
LeyDMühl-BenninghausRYilmazU, et al.The derivo embolization device, a second-generation flow diverter for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms, evaluated in an elastase-induced aneurysm model. Clin Neuroradiol2015: 27(3): 335–343. DOI: 10.1007/s00062-015-0493-9.
6.
BecskeTBrinjikjiWPottsMB, et al.Long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes following pipeline embolization device treatment of complex internal carotid artery aneurysms: five-year results of the pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms trial. Neurosurgery2017; 80: 40–48. DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyw014.
7.
OishiHTeranishiKYatomiK, et al.Flow diverter therapy using a pipeline embolization device for 100 unruptured large and giant internal carotid artery aneurysms in a single center in a Japanese population. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo)2018; 58: 461–467. DOI: 10.2176/nmc.oa.2018-0148.
8.
PierotLSpelleLBergeJ, et al.SAFE study (safety and efficacy analysis of FRED embolic device in aneurysm treatment): 1-year clinical and anatomical results. J Neurointerv Surg2019; 11: 184–189. DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014261.
9.
GriessenauerCJMöhlenbruchMAHendrixP, et al.The FRED for cerebral aneurysms of the posterior circulation: a subgroup analysis of the EuFRED registry. Am J Neuroradiol2020; 41: 658–662. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A6447.
10.
De BeuleTBoulangerTHeyeS, et al.p64 flow diverter: results in 108 patients from a single center. Interv Neuroradiol2020; 40: 1591019920932048. DOI: 10.1177/1591019920932048.
11.
KrausBGoertzLTurowskiB, et al.Safety and efficacy of the derivo embolization device for the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a multicentric study. J Neurointerv Surg2019; 11: 68–73. DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-013963.
12.
TaschnerCAStrackeCPDornF, et al.Derivo embolization device in the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a prospective multicenter study. J Neurointerv Surg2020; 50: 016303. DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016303.
13.
Killer-OberpfalzerMKocerNGriessenauerCJ, et al.European multicenter study for the evaluation of a dual-layer flow-diverting stent for treatment of wide-neck intracranial aneurysms: the european flow-redirection intraluminal device study. Am J Neuroradiol2018; 39: 841–847. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5592.
14.
DincHSaatciIOguzS, et al.Long-term clinical and angiographic follow-up results of the dual-layer flow diverter device (FRED) for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms in a multicenter study. Neuroradiology2021: 63(6): 943–952. DOI: 10.1007/s00234-020-02627-1.
15.
SirakovSSirakovABhogalP, et al.The p64 flow diverter-mid-term and long-term results from a single center. Clin Neuroradiol2019; 30: 471–480. DOI: 10.1007/s00062-019-00823-y.
16.
TaylorLIDickersonJCDambrinoRJ, et al.Platelet testing in flow diversion: a review of the evidence. Neurosurg Focus2017; 42: E5. DOI: 10.3171/2017.3.FOCUS1746.
17.
KamranMYarnoldJGrunwaldIQ, et al.Assessment of angiographic outcomes after flow diversion treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a new grading schema. Neuroradiology2011; 53: 501–508. DOI: 10.1007/s00234-010-0767-5.
18.
PumarJMBangueroACuellarH, et al.Treatment of intracranial aneurysms with the SILK embolization device in a multicenter study. A retrospective data analysis. Neurosurgery2017: 81(4): 595–601. DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyw123.
19.
CagnazzoFLefevreP-HMantillaD, et al.Patency of the supraclinoid internal carotid artery branches after flow diversion treatment. A meta-analysis. J Neuroradiol2019; 46: 9–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.neurad.2018.07.006.
20.
MacdonaldIRShankarJJS. Delayed parent artery occlusions following use of SILK flow diverters for treatment of intracranial aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg2019; 11: 690–693. DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014354.
21.
HouKLiGLvX, et al. Delayed rupture of intracranial aneurysms after placement of intra-luminal flow diverter. Neuroradiol J2020; 33: 451–464. DOI: 10.1177/1971400920953299.
22.
KangHLuoBLiuJ, et al.Mortality after treatment of intracranial aneurysms with the Pipeline Embolization Device. J Neurointerv Surg2021; 14(1). DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-017002.
23.
ZaeskeCGoertzLDornF, et al.Comparative analysis of the pipeline and the derivo flow diverters for the treatment of unruptured Intracranial aneurysms-a multicentric study. World Neurosurg2021; 145: e326–e331. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.10.062.
24.
LinNBrouillardAMKrishnaC, et al.Use of coils in conjunction with the pipeline embolization device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurgery2015; 76: 142–149. DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000579.
25.
KanPSrinivasanVMMbabuikeN, et al.Aneurysms with persistent patency after treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device. J Neurosurg2017; 126: 1894–1898. DOI: 10.3171/2016.6.JNS16402.
26.
BrinjikjiWMuradMHLanzinoG, et al. Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow diverters: a meta-analysis. Stroke2013; 44: 442–447. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.678151.
27.
ZhouGSuMYinY-L, et al.Complications associated with the use of flow-diverting devices for cerebral aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus2017; 42: E17. DOI: 10.3171/2017.3.FOCUS16450.
28.
SimgenALeyDRothC, et al.Evaluation of occurring complications after flow diverter treatment of elastase-induced aneurysm in rabbits using micro-CT and MRI at 9.4 T. Neuroradiology2016; 58: 987–996. DOI: 10.1007/s00234-016-1730-x.
29.
Aguilar PérezMHenkesEHellsternV, et al.endovascular treatment of anterior circulation aneurysms with the p64 flow modulation device: mid- and long-term results in 617 aneurysms from a single center. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown)2021; 20: 355–363. DOI: 10.1093/ons/opaa425.
30.
BhogalPGanslandtOBäznerH, et al.The fate of side branches covered by flow diverters-results from 140 patients. World Neurosurg2017; 103: 789–798. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.04.092.
31.
RouchaudABrinjikjiWLanzinoG, et al.Delayed hemorrhagic complications after flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms: a literature overview. Neuroradiology2016; 58: 171–177. DOI: 10.1007/s00234-015-1615-4.
32.
CruzJPChowMO'KellyC, et al.delayed ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage following flow diversion for the treatment of anterior circulation aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2012; 33: 603–608. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3065.
33.
TsaiY-HWongH-FHsuS-W. Endovascular management of spontaneous delayed migration of the flow-diverter stent. J Neuroradiol2020; 47: 38–45. DOI: 10.1016/j.neurad.2018.11.004.
34.
ChalouhiNTjoumakarisSIGonzalezLF, et al.Spontaneous delayed migration/shortening of the pipeline embolization device: report of 5 cases. Am J Neuroradiol2013; 34: 2326–2330. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3632.
35.
GriessenauerCJEnriquez-MarulandaAXiangS, et al.Comparison of PED and FRED flow diverters for posterior circulation aneurysms: a propensity score matched cohort study. J Neurointerv Surg2021; 13: 153–158. DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016055.
36.
Mühl-BenninghausRHaußmannASimgenA, et al.Transient in-stent stenosis: a common finding after flow diverter implantation. J Neurointerv Surg2019; 11: 196–199. DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-013975.
37.
LubiczBVan der ElstOCollignonL, et al.Silk flow-diverter stent for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a series of 58 patients with emphasis on long-term results. Am J Neuroradiol2015; 36: 542–546. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4143.
38.
Aguilar-PérezMBhogalPHenkesE, et al.In-stent stenosis after p64 flow diverter treatment. Clin Neuroradiol2018; 28: 563–568. DOI: 10.1007/s00062-017-0591-y.
