PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - M.S. Park
AU  - C. Kilburg
AU  - P. Taussky
AU  - F.C. Albuquerque
AU  - D.F. Kallmes
AU  - E.I. Levy
AU  - P. Jabbour
AU  - I. Szikora
AU  - E. Boccardi
AU  - R.A. Hanel
AU  - A. Bonafé
AU  - C.G. McDougall
TI  - Pipeline Embolization Device with or without Adjunctive Coil Embolization: Analysis of Complications from the IntrePED Registry
AID  - 10.3174/ajnr.A4678
DP  - 2016 Jun 01
TA  - American Journal of Neuroradiology
PG  - 1127--1131
VI  - 37
IP  - 6
4099  - http://www.ajnr.org/content/37/6/1127.short
4100  - http://www.ajnr.org/content/37/6/1127.full
SO  - Am. J. Neuroradiol.2016 Jun 01; 37
AB  - SUMMARY: Flow diversion to treat cerebral aneurysms has revolutionized neurointerventional surgery. Because the addition of coils potentially increases the time and complexity of endovascular procedures, we sought to determine whether adjunctive coil use is associated with an increase in complications. Patients in the International Retrospective Study of Pipeline Embolization Device registry were divided into those treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device alone (n = 689 patients; n = 797 aneurysms; mean aneurysm size, 10.3 ± 7.6 mm) versus those treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device and concurrent coil embolization (n = 104 patients; n = 109 aneurysms; mean aneurysm size, 13.6 ± 7.8 mm). Patient demographics and aneurysm characteristics were examined. Rates of neurologic morbidity and mortality were compared between groups. The Pipeline Embolization Device with versus without coiling required a significantly longer procedure time (135.8 ± 63.9 versus 96.7 ± 46.2 min; P < .0001) and resulted in higher neurological morbidity (12.5% versus 7.8%; P = .13). These data suggest that either strategy represents an acceptable risk profile in the treatment of complex cerebral aneurysms and warrants further investigation.IntrePEDInternational Retrospective Study of Pipeline Embolization DevicePEDPipeline Embolization Device