Citations

Abstract As capabilities for endovascular treatment of intracranial vascular pathologies continue to expand, the need for access to the distal internal carotid artery with rigid support catheter systems continues to increase. One of the dominant factors limiting this access is patient anatomy, specifically vessel tortuosity. Increased tortuosity of the carotid siphon is a frequently encountered anatomic variant and may complicate endovascular procedures in adults and children. 1,2 Failed attempts to navigate the carotid siphon with a distal access catheter carry a risk of vessel injury and treatment failure. For this reason, techniques that aid in supporting safe advancement of a distal access catheter across a tortuous carotid siphon are essential. 3,4 In this video, we demonstrate 2 ways in which this may be accomplished. The first technique uses a larger diameter microcatheter, such as the AXS Offset catheter (Stryker, Kalamazoo, Michigan), to increase support for the distal access catheter, while the second uses a buddy wire technique to accomplish this increased support. Both of these techniques can help increase the safety of navigating a tortuous carotid siphon and increase the likelihood of successful treatment. The procedures shown were performed with the informed consent of the patients.

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.

Abstract BACKGROUND The Pipeline Embolization Device (PED; Medtronic) has been used off-label for the treatment of challenging posterior circulation aneurysms. Data on this modality are primarily limited to small retrospective single-center series. OBJECTIVE To assess safety and efficacy of this treatment by establishing an international, multicenter collaboration. METHODS Consecutive posterior circulation aneurysms treated with the PED from 2012 to 2019 across 11 neurovascular centers were retrospectively reviewed. Baseline demographics, aneurysm and treatment characteristics, complications, occlusion status, and functional outcome were assessed. RESULTS There were 149 posterior circulation aneurysms treated with PED in 146 patients. A total of 24 (16.4%) patients presented with subarachnoid hemorrhage. Most aneurysms were dissecting/blister (36.2%) in morphology, followed by saccular (35.6%) and fusiform (28.2%). The most common locations were the vertebral (51.7%) and basilar arteries (22.8%). Complete or near-complete occlusion (>90%) was achieved in 90.9% of aneurysms at a median follow-up of 12 mo. Dissecting/blister aneurysms were most likely to occlude ( P = .06). Symptomatic neurologic complications occurred in 9.4% of aneurysms, associated with larger size, ruptured presentation, presentations with brain stem compression, cranial nerve palsy, or stroke. Favorable functional outcome (modified Rankin Score 0-2) was achieved in 86.2% of patients. There were 6 fatalities of which 4 occurred in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients. CONCLUSION This multicenter study shows that PED for the treatment of posterior circulation is preferentially used for the treatment of fusiform and dissecting/blister aneurysm morphologies. Despite the challenges presented by these less-common morphologies, flow diversion may be performed with a neurologic complication rate of about 10% and favorable long-term aneurysm occlusion rates.

Abstract BACKGROUND There is a paucity of literature regarding treatment options for extracranial pseudoaneurysms of the internal carotid artery (ICA). To date, Pipeline Embolization Device (PED; Medtronic Inc) use for the treatment of extracranial pseudoaneurysms of the ICA has only been reported from single-center case series. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of PED for the treatment of extracranial ICA pseudoaneurysms. METHODS This is a multicenter retrospective study involving 6 high-volume tertiary academic institutions in the United States. We analyzed patients with extracranial ICA pseudoaneurysms treated with PED between January 1, 2011, and January 1, 2019. Clinical assessment was performed pre- and postintervention using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and National Institution of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at a minimum of 4-mo follow-up. RESULTS A total of 28 pseudoaneurysms with a mean diameter of 17.7 mm (range: 4.1-52.5 mm) were treated with PED in 24 patients at 6 participating centers. The mean age was 52.1 yr (17-73) ± 14.3 with 14 females and 10 males. At a mean of 21-mo (range 4-66 mo) follow-up, complete occlusion was achieved in 89% (n = 25/28), with near-complete occlusion (>90% occlusion) in the remainder. There were no periprocedural complications. Postprocedure NIHSS was 0 in 88% (n = 21/24) and 1 in 12% (n = 3/24) of patients, and mRS was 0 in 83% (n = 20/24) and 1 in 17% (n = 4/24) of patients. CONCLUSION The treatment of extracranial ICA pseudoaneurysms with PED is safe and effective in selected patients. Randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies are needed to establish the role of flow diversion for ICA pseudoaneurysms.

OBJECTIVE Traditionally, stent-assisted coiling and balloon remodeling have been the primary endovascular treatments for wide-necked intracranial aneurysms with complex morphologies. PulseRider is an aneurysm neck reconstruction device that provides parent vessel protection for aneurysm coiling. The objective of this study was to report early postmarket results with the PulseRider device. METHODS This study was a prospective registry of patients treated with PulseRider at 13 American neurointerventional centers following FDA approval of this device. Data collected included clinical presentation, aneurysm characteristics, treatment details, and perioperative events. Follow-up data included degree of aneurysm occlusion and delayed (> 30 days after the procedure) complications. RESULTS A total of 54 aneurysms were treated, with the same number of PulseRider devices, across 13 centers. Fourteen cases were in off-label locations (7 anterior communicating artery, 6 middle cerebral artery, and 1 A 1 segment anterior cerebral artery aneurysms). The average dome/neck ratio was 1.2. Technical success was achieved in 52 cases (96.2%). Major complications included the following: 3 procedure-related posterior cerebral artery strokes, a device-related intraoperative aneurysm rupture, and a delayed device thrombosis. Immediately postoperative Raymond-Roy occlusion classification (RROC) class 1 was achieved in 21 cases (40.3%), class 2 in 15 (28.8%), and class 3 in 16 cases (30.7%). Additional devices were used in 3 aneurysms. For those patients with 3- or 6-month angiographic follow-up (28 patients), 18 aneurysms (64.2%) were RROC class 1 and 8 (28.5%) were RROC class 2. CONCLUSIONS PulseRider is being used in both on- and off-label cases following FDA approval. The clinical and radiographic outcomes are comparable in real-world experience to the outcomes observed in earlier studies. Further experience is needed with the device to determine its role in the neurointerventionalist’s armamentarium, especially with regard to its off-label use.