Spears, Julian

Abstract Background Flow diversion is a common endovascular treatment for cerebral aneurysms, but studies comparing different types of flow diverters are scarce. Objective To perform a propensity score matched cohort study comparing the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) and Flow Redirection Intraluminal Device (FRED) for posterior circulation aneurysms. Methods Consecutive aneurysms of the posterior circulation treated at 25 neurovascular centers with either PED or FRED were collected. Propensity score matching was used to control for age, duration of follow-up imaging, adjunctive coiling, and aneurysm location, size, and morphology; previously ruptured aneurysms were excluded. The two devices were compared for the following outcomes: procedural complications, aneurysm occlusion, and functional outcome. Results A total of 375 aneurysms of the posterior circulation were treated in 369 patients. The PED was used in 285 (77.2%) and FRED in 84 (22.8%) procedures. Aneurysms treated with the PED were more commonly fusiform and larger than those treated with FRED. To account for these important differences, propensity score matching was performed resulting in 33 PED and FRED unruptured aneurysm pairs. No differences were found in occlusion status and neurologic thromboembolic or hemorrhagic complications between the two devices. The proportion of patients with favorable functional outcome was higher with FRED (100% vs 87.9%, p=0.04). Conclusion Comparative analysis of PED and FRED for the treatment of unruptured posterior circulation aneurysms did not identify significant differences in aneurysm occlusion or neurologic complications. Variations in functional outcomes warrant additional investigations.

Background and Purpose— To address the increasing need to counsel patients about treatment indications for unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA), we endeavored to develop a consensus on assessment of UIAs among a group of specialists from diverse fields involved in research and treatment of UIAs. Methods— After composition of the research group, a Delphi consensus was initiated to identify and rate all features, which may be relevant to assess UIAs and their treatment by using ranking scales and analysis of inter-rater agreement (IRA) for each factor. IRA was categorized as very high, high, moderate, or low. Results— Ultimately, 39 specialists from 4 specialties agreed (high or very high IRAs) on the following key factors for or against UIA treatment decisions: (1) patient age, life expectancy, and comorbid diseases; (2) previous subarachnoid hemorrhage from a different aneurysm, family history for UIA or subarachnoid hemorrhage, nicotine use; (3) UIA size, location, and lobulation; (4) UIA growth or de novo formation on serial imaging; (5) clinical symptoms (cranial nerve deficit, mass effect, and thromboembolic events from UIAs); and (6) risk factors for UIA treatment (patient age and life expectancy, UIA size, and estimated risk of treatment). However, IRAs for features rated with low relevance were also generally low, which underlined the existing controversy about the natural history of UIAs. Conclusions— Our results highlight that neurovascular specialists currently consider many features as important when evaluating UIAs but also highlight that the appreciation of natural history of UIAs remains uncertain, even within a group of highly informed individuals.