Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR is seeking candidates for the AJNR Podcast Editor. Read the position description.

Research ArticleINTERVENTIONAL

FRED Flow Diverter: A Study on Safety and Efficacy in a Consecutive Group of 50 Patients

H. Luecking, T. Engelhorn, S. Lang, P. Goelitz, S. Kloska, K. Roessler and A. Doerfler
American Journal of Neuroradiology March 2017, 38 (3) 596-602; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5052
H. Luecking
aFrom the Departments of Neuroradiology (H.L., T.E., S.L., P.G., S.K., A.D.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for H. Luecking
T. Engelhorn
aFrom the Departments of Neuroradiology (H.L., T.E., S.L., P.G., S.K., A.D.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for T. Engelhorn
S. Lang
aFrom the Departments of Neuroradiology (H.L., T.E., S.L., P.G., S.K., A.D.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for S. Lang
P. Goelitz
aFrom the Departments of Neuroradiology (H.L., T.E., S.L., P.G., S.K., A.D.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for P. Goelitz
S. Kloska
aFrom the Departments of Neuroradiology (H.L., T.E., S.L., P.G., S.K., A.D.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for S. Kloska
K. Roessler
bNeurosurgery (K.R.), University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for K. Roessler
A. Doerfler
aFrom the Departments of Neuroradiology (H.L., T.E., S.L., P.G., S.K., A.D.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for A. Doerfler
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular flow diverters are increasingly used for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms. We assessed the safety and efficacy of the Flow-Redirection Endoluminal Device (FRED) in a consecutive series of 50 patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inclusion criteria were wide-neck, blister-like, or fusiform/dissecting aneurysms independent of size, treated with the FRED between February 2014 and May 2015. Assessment criteria were aneurysm occlusion, manifest ischemic stroke, bleeding, or death. The occlusion rate was assessed at 3 months with flat panel CT and at 6 months with DSA by using the Raymond classification and the O'Kelly-Marotta grading scale.

RESULTS: Fifty patients with 52 aneurysms were treated with 54 FREDs; 20 patients were treated with the FRED and coils. Aneurysm size ranged from 2.0 to 18.5 mm. Deployment of the FRED was successful in all cases. There were no device-associated complications. One patient developed mild stroke symptoms that fully receded within days. There have been no late-term complications so far and no treatment-related mortality. Initial follow-up at 3 months showed complete occlusion in 72.3% of the overall study group, Six-month follow-up showed total and remnant-neck occlusion in 87.2% of patients, distributed over 81.5% of the FRED-only cases and 95.0% of the cases with combined treatment.

CONCLUSIONS: The FRED flow diverter is a safe device for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms of various types. Our data reveal high occlusion rates at 3 and 6 months, comparable with those in other flow diverters. Long-term occlusion rates are expected.

ABBREVIATIONS:

FPCT
flat panel CT
FRED
Flow-Redirection Endoluminal Device
RROC
Raymond-Roy occlusion classification

Endovascular treatment has become the therapy of choice for intracranial aneurysms.1⇓–3 In addition to the well-established embolization with coils, supported by balloons or stents,4⇓–6 flow-modulating stents are increasingly used for dedicated aneurysms.7

Flow diverters can cause intra-aneurysmal thrombosis and thus occlusion.8⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–19 This outcome is achieved by a narrowly braided stent wall, which, on the other hand, allows the blood to pass through to perforator arteries or major branches where the pressure gradient is high enough.

The Flow-Redirection Endoluminal Device (FRED; MicroVention, Tustin, California) uses a new principle because it combines an outer, self-expanding and dimensionally stable open-pored stent with an inner, narrowly braided stent. It is intended to combine easy deployment with flow-redirecting properties. The ends of the outer layer (“flared ends”) exceed the inner layer on each side by approximately 3 mm where there is little or no flow-diverting effect.12,20

We report our results for safety and efficacy in a consecutive series of 50 patients treated with the FRED flow diverter with incidental cerebral aneurysms or those who were retreated after initial coiling in SAH.

Materials and Methods

Inclusion Criteria

The inclusion period was from February 2014 through May 2015. All patients treated with a FRED flow diverter for ≥1 aneurysm were included. In the otherwise consecutive series, only 2 patients were excluded, being treated for carotid-cavernous fistulas with 2 FREDs each (stent-in-stent). The FRED was not used exclusively during this period but as an alternative to other flow diverters when it seemed appropriate.

The decision about whether to perform open surgery or intravascular therapy is made in a clinical conference with a neurosurgeon and neurologist. Accessibility and form (especially the neck and the neck/dome visual ratio) of the aneurysm, age, clinical condition, and the patient's wishes influence the decision. The selection of the particular device and the choice of whether to use additional coils are made by 2 senior neuroradiologists. In general, in our department flow diverters are used for all blister-like aneurysms or those with a wide neck where coil dislocation is expected or where a proper reconstruction of the base seems unlikely with a balloon only, leading to an assumed higher risk of reperfusion. Although there is no sharp cutoff in aneurysm size for additional coiling, we attempt to use coils in aneurysms of >5 mm when safe catheterization is possible. If so, there is an attempt at dense packing to reduce the rate of reperfusion21 and post-flow-diverting hemorrhage.22 In the aneurysms treated in this cohort with a flow diverter and coils, the flow diverter was necessary for remodeling the aneurysm base. Solitary coil embolization was not a proper option in those cases.

The FRED is preferred compared with other flow diverters if major branches are in the vicinity (eg, the anterior choroid artery) because one can achieve proper coverage of the aneurysm neck combined with stable positioning while the major branch is only covered by the open-pored part of the flow diverter.

In patients with acute SAH, flow diversion was used only when there was no other intravascular or surgical option available. Administration of aspirin and clopidogrel hours before placement of the stent has not seemed appropriate to us in light of a possible re-SAH, though new regimens with short loading intervals using adjunctive tirofiban have a low complication profile.23 Furthermore, platelet suppression might severely affect further surgical options such as placing a CSF drain.

Preinterventional Diagnostic Imaging

Both diagnostic angiography and intervention were performed by using an Axiom Artis dBA biplane system (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany).

All patients underwent diagnostic angiography before the intervention for planning of endovascular therapy. For each patient, 3D imaging of the aneurysm (with multiplane and volume rendering technique reconstructions) was acquired combined with targeted series, depicting the aneurysm neck and parent vessel.

Patient Preparation

Before the intervention, all patients provided informed consent for the procedure. Forty-eight patients were prepared with 75 mg of clopidogrel and 100 mg of aspirin 7 days before the intervention. Of the 2 other patients, one was pretreated with 500 mg of ticlopidine, and one, with 150 mg of clopidogrel due to aspirin intolerance. Sufficient platelet suppression was observed by using a Multiplate analyzer (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) 1 day before the intervention. The Multiplate analyzer indicates proper response to aspirin and clopidogrel/ticlopidine when ASPItest and ADPtest values are beneath standard range. Because there were no nonresponders in our study group for either of the drugs, no action was taken.

Intervention

Standard transfemoral access was obtained by using an 80-/90-cm 6F sheath placed in the common carotid artery or a 65-cm 6F sheath placed in the subclavian artery, respectively. We placed 6F Envoy guiding catheters (Codman & Shurtleff, Raynham, Massachusetts) with or without a soft tip (distal access type) in the C1 section of the internal carotid artery or the proximal V3 segment of the vertebral artery, as appropriate. At the start of the intervention, standard posterior-anterior and lateral series were acquired for later comparison. Coil positioning and deployment of the flow diverter were surveilled under road-mapping/fluoroscopy. After the procedure, posterior-anterior and lateral series of the vascular territory were acquired to rule out distal embolisms. Hemorrhage was ruled out by flat panel CT (FPCT, Dyna CT; Siemens) following the intervention.

Materials

FRED is approved in Europe and several other countries. There is no FDA approval so far.

The FRED is available from 3.5 to 5.5 mm in diameter, in increments of 0.5 mm and from 13/7 to 32/25 mm in length: The first number gives the total length, and the second number denotes the working (flow-diverting) length. It is delivered via a 2-tip microcatheter (Headway 27 microcatheter; MicroVention; distal: 2.6F/proximal: 3.1F). The FRED size was based on the diameter of the parent vessel or slightly overdimensioned. An example case is given in Fig 1 illustrating shape and visualization of the FRED.

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

Sidewall aneurysm of the left vertebral artery (A). Gradual deployment of the FRED device (B and C). Note delayed washout of contrast right after deployment (E) and good visualization of the flow diverter on 2D and 3D imaging (D, F–H) (3D imaging acquired with flat panel CT). D and G, The overall (4 markers at each end) and working length (radiopaque “double helix”) are illustrated.

For additional coiling bioactive (Cerecyte coils; Codman & Shurtleff) or Hydrogel coils (MicroVention) were used according to the aneurysm size. The microcatheter was placed in the aneurysm before deployment of the FRED (“jailing”).

Follow-Up

Follow-up imaging included MR imaging with TOF MRA and contrast-enhanced MRA and flat panel CT24 with intravenous contrast application during the hospital stay and at 3 months after the intervention; DSA, MR imaging, and FPCT were performed 6 months after the intervention. Clopidogrel was stopped 3 months after the intervention if no pathologic findings occurred.

Assessment Criteria

Safety.

Patients were examined by a neurologist for neurologic deficits at admission, after the intervention, and at discharge. Assessment criteria were the following: manifest ischemic stroke, flow diverter–associated hemorrhage, or death. Procedural safety (deployment, visibility) was assessed by 2 experienced interventionists.

Efficacy.

Occlusion rates were assessed by 2 interventionists in a consensus reading. The O'Kelly-Marotta grading scale25 for flow diversion (A, total filling; B, subtotal filling; C, entry remnant; D, no filling; 1, immediate washout; 2, stasis until the capillary phase; 3, stasis until the venous phase) was used in time-resolved DSA imaging immediately and 6 months after the intervention. The Raymond-Roy occlusion classification (RROC; 1, complete occlusion; 2, remnant neck/dog ear; 3, remnant aneurysm) was used in steady-state angiography (FPCT, MRA) during the hospital stay and at 3 and 6 months.

Results

Fifty patients (39 women, 11 men; 55.4 ± 11.9 years of age; range, 25–77 years) with 52 aneurysms were treated.

In our series, we used FRED implant sizes from 3.5 × 13/7 mm to 5.5 × 32/25 mm.

Forty-four (88%) aneurysms were located at the ICA and carotid bifurcation, including the posterior communicating artery origin (2 patients had 2 aneurysms in the same segment covered with 1 flow diverter); 1 (2%), at the MCA; 3 (6%), at the intracranial part of the vertebral artery; and 1 each, at the PICA origin and basilar tip. Forty-two aneurysms (84%) were incidental findings. Fourteen patients (28%) were retreated with the FRED for recurrence of a previously coiled aneurysm. Four of the retreated patients had an SAH from the targeted aneurysm before the first treatment. Prior treatment included stent placement (n = 2), stent-protected coiling (n = 2), implantation of a different flow diverter (n = 2), prior clipping (n = 1), flow-diverter-protected coiling (n = 1), and prior coiling (n = 6). Another 4 (8%) patients had SAH originating from another aneurysm.

Thirty (60%) patients were treated exclusively with a FRED device (group A) in the current intervention. In 4 patients (8%), 2 overlapping flow diverters (stent-in-stent) were used because no safe catheterization of the aneurysm was possible (n = 2) or the aneurysm was at the origin of the ophthalmic artery (n = 2). The former showed no relevant stasis of contrast after deployment of the first FRED and they were thus treated with a second flow diverter. The latter was thought unlikely to occlude because a high-pressure gradient from the ophthalmic artery was present. Twenty (40%) patients underwent additional coiling (group B), as explained in the “Materials and Methods” section.

Aneurysm sizes ranged from 2.0 to 18.5 mm, resulting in a mean diameter of 5.4 ± 4.5 mm in the overall group. Aneurysm sizes ranged from 2.0 to 13.0 mm (mean, 3.6 ± 2.7 mm) in group A and from 2.5 to 18.5 mm (mean, 8.0 ± 5.2 mm) in group B. Thirty-nine saccular, 8 blister-like, and 3 fusiform/dissecting aneurysms were treated, with mean sizes of 5.8 ± 4.6 mm (range, 1.5–18.5 mm), 2.1 ± 0.6 mm (range, 1.5–3 mm), and 8.3 ± 3.3 mm (range, 5.5–13 mm), respectively.

Safety

Thirty-nine patients (78%) had neither clinical complications nor pathologic imaging findings. Nine patients (18%) showed punctual subcortical ischemic lesions on postprocedural MR imaging without neurologic deficits. One patient had mild contralateral hemiparesis right after the intervention but recovered completely during the hospital stay. In 1 patient in group B treated with additional bioactive coils, the early MR imaging showed several punctual contrast-enhancing lesions on the ipsilateral hemisphere; this patient had moderate temporary headache but no focal deficits. Hence, no intervention-related mortality was observed.

In 1 patient with a primarily successful deployment and complete wall adaptation of the FRED, there was a shift in configuration on initial follow-up, showing a concentric narrowing of the distal end with 2 of 4 markers sticking together (“fish mouth” configuration), resulting in a mild delay of time-to-peak and mean transit time on perfusion-weighted imaging. This finding remained stable at 3 months but showed complete resolution at the routine DSA follow-up at 6 months.

At 6-month follow-up, we found endothelial hyperplasia without hemodynamic effects in MR perfusion in 1 patient and concentric narrowing of the flow diverter and parent vessel in 2 patients, one of whom had delayed time-to-peak perfusion on MR imaging.

As a consequence, patients with fish-mouthing or endothelial hyperplasia received extended dual platelet inhibition until 6 months after the intervention. In an additional follow-up with FPCT 3 months later, the findings remained stable and clopidogrel was stopped again.

Efficacy

Immediate complete occlusion occurred in group B in 9 patients (18%); there was no case of immediate complete occlusion in group A. Detailed immediate postinterventional occlusion rates are given in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1:

Initial occlusion rates using OKMGS

Three-month FPCT and MR imaging were available in 47 cases. One FPCT dataset was not evaluable because of hardening artifacts from the coil package; therefore, only MR imaging was used for occlusion rate assessment.26,27 Three patients were lost to follow-up: One patient died of a heart attack in the meantime; in 2 patients, the 3-month follow-up was not performed because they refused to undergo further imaging.

In the overall group, we observed complete aneurysm occlusion in 34 of 47 patients (72.3%). Another 8 patients (17.0%) showed functional occlusion with only a remaining “dog ear,” resulting in 89.3% complete or subtotal occlusion. Occlusion rates after 3 months in the particular treatment groups are given in Table 2. Reperfusion occurred in 2 patients (4%) in group B (aneurysm sizes, 18 and 18.5 mm) who changed from RROC grade 1 in the postprocedural scan to RROC grade 2 at the 3-month follow-up, remaining unchanged after 6 months.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2:

Three-month occlusion rates using the RROC

Six-month DSA follow-up (particular occlusion rates given in Table 3) was available in 43 patients. In addition to the 1 patient who died in the first 3-month period, 6 patients (12%) refused to have another diagnostic angiography because of anxiety or unknown reasons. For those patients, MR imaging (n = 3) or FPCT (patient = 1) was available in 4 as an alternative imaging method. The results of all patients, including DSA and FPCT or MRA, are shown in Table 4 with RROC because there was no dynamic information available throughout the overall group. The additional patient with RROC grade 3 in group B did not have a recurrence but did not undergo follow-up at 3 months for medical reasons (severe impairment after SAH with prolonged rehabilitation) and thus was not considered in Table 3. Occlusion rates for the different subtypes of aneurysms are given in Table 5.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3:

Six-month occlusion rates using OKMGS

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4:

Six-month occlusion rates including DSA and alternative follow-up with RROC

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5:

Six-month occlusion rates for the particular forms of aneurysmsa

Adding RROC 1 and 2 results, we achieved an occlusion rate of 81.5% in group A, 95.0% in group B, and 87.2 % in the overall study group.

Discussion

In this single-center prospective study, we examined the FRED flow diverter, a device designed to combine easy deployment with flow-diversion properties and a safety profile similar to that of other flow diverters on the market.

Six-month follow-up revealed an overall complete occlusion rate of 76.6%, with a recognizable lower rate of 74.1% in group A (FRED exclusively) than the group B (FRED and coils) rate of 80.0%. Given that most aneurysms were incidental findings in which a small remnant neck might be acceptable, there was subtotal occlusion (complete occlusion or small remnant neck) of 87.2% in the overall group (81.5% group A, 95.0% group B). The occlusion rates were stable during the time observed in all except 2 patients in group B in whom large aneurysms of 18.0 and 18.5 mm showed reperfusion after 3 months.

The occlusion rate in group A was almost identical to the results of the meta-analysis of Brinjikji et al,28 which showed total occlusion in 76% (95% confidence interval, 70%–81%) of 1654 cases with various flow diverters. It was also similar to the data of Möhlenbruch et al12 and Kocer et al,20 who assessed the FRED in particular, with 73% and 80% complete occlusion, respectively. Results for the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED; Covidien, Irvine, California) indicated that occlusion rates might increase during long-term follow-up of up to 2 years.29 Patients in group B had larger aneurysms with a mean diameter of 8.1 mm compared with those of group A, who had a mean size of 3.7 mm, indicating a tendency to use coils in larger aneurysms, mainly for easier probing and an expected higher rate of occlusion. After adjusting for aneurysm size, we achieved complete occlusion in 33/38 patients (86.8%) with aneurysms of up 10 mm. An occlusion rate of 12/12 (100%) in group B with aneurysms of up to 10 mm indicates that additional coiling likely results in better immediate and long-term occlusion; thus, it can prevent hemorrhage that is reported to happen after flow diversion due to mechanical and inflammatory changes within the aneurysm wall.22,30,31

Four patients (8%) were treated with 2 flow diverters as stent-in-stent over the same aneurysm, 2 of whom had an aneurysm of ophthalmic artery origin. In the latter, considerable shrinkage could be achieved (Fig 2). Shrinking aneurysms at the origin of smaller arteries where a relevant blood pressure gradient is present are described for the PED as well.29 In the other 2 patients, there was complete occlusion of the aneurysm at 6 months after treatment with 2 FREDs.

Fig 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 2.

Paraophthalmic aneurysm 6 months after (A) and before (B) implantation of 2 FREDs. Note the “white collar” between the parent vessel and the aneurysm, suggesting endothelialization of the stents.

Only low occlusion rates (1/6 complete occlusions, another 3/6 remnant necks) were achieved in aneurysms of >10 mm. Because this study included a very small number of patients and rather short follow-up, our results are probably insufficient for reliable assessment of the efficacy in large aneurysms. On the other hand, we could achieve a reduction in size and thus mass effect in two-thirds of large aneurysms. We also expect advancing occlusion of the larger aneurysms during further follow-up.

While 78% of all patients had neither clinical deficits nor pathologic imaging findings after the intervention, manifest stroke was observed in 1 patient. This patient had mild stroke symptoms that receded during the hospital stay. Postprocedural MR imaging revealed subclinical pointed DWI lesions in another 9 patients (18%). These punctual lesions did not cause neurologic symptoms or prolonged hospitalization; there were no noticeable periprocedural abnormalities in those cases (eg, prolonged duration of the intervention). All these patients had proper suppression of platelet function. A rate of 18% asymptomatic minor lesions is well below that seen in prior studies, which found microembolism in up to 37% of patients treated with flow-diverter stents for embolization of intracranial aneurysms.32

In 1 patient, contrast-enhancing lesions were found on postprocedural MR imaging. The only clinical symptom was moderate headache for several days. As a precaution, cortisone was administered orally for 2 weeks; clinical symptoms dissipated within days after administration. We do not assume that these findings are associated with the FRED or its delivery catheter in particular. The exact cause of this phenomenon is not fully understood, though an inflammatory reaction, probably due to scraped-off hydrophilic coating, is suspected and has been reported for different microcatheters.33

There was no acute or subacute in-stent thrombosis. One patient had mild endothelial hyperplasia at 6-month follow-up with only a minor effect on time-to-peak maps in perfusion-weighted MR imaging. Two FRED flow diverters showed a concentric narrowing of the distal end of the stent or the distal end of the flow-diverting segment, respectively, including the parent vessel. This kind of alteration has been observed in other stents and flow diverters as well. The geometry of the stent and the parent vessel, vessel size, and healing reactions have been discussed as potential causes of this phenomenon20,34; however, there is no accepted explanation. In all 3 cases of endothelial hyperplasia or change in stent configuration, dual antiplatelet therapy was extended until 6 months after the intervention. While further deterioration was not seen in any of these patients, in 1 patient, the fish-mouth configuration spontaneously resolved almost completely between the 3- and 6-month follow-up. All the alterations mentioned were noticed on FPCT with intravenous contrast application; thus, we are encouraged to use this method to obtain high-quality information on the shape and perfused lumen of the flow diverter and the hemodynamics downstream of the stent for interim follow-up or in patients in whom DSA is not an option.35

Conclusions

The FRED flow diverter is a technically safe device with a low rate of complications. It has occlusion rates similar to those of other flow diverters. It is our experience that its higher radial force allows easier deployment in certain cases. Long-term follow-up is needed to prove stable occlusion, especially in larger aneurysms and those with no additional coiling.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Brinjikji W,
    2. Rabinstein AA,
    3. Nasr DM, et al
    . Better outcomes with treatment by coiling relative to clipping of unruptured intracranial aneurysms in the United States, 2001–2008. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:1071–75 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2453 pmid:21511860
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Alshekhlee A,
    2. Mehta S,
    3. Edgell RC, et al
    . Hospital mortality and complications of electively clipped or coiled unruptured intracranial aneurysm. Stroke 2010;41:1471–76 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.580647 pmid:20522817
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Molyneux A,
    2. Kerr R,
    3. Stratton I, et al
    ; International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) Collaborative Group. International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002;360:1267–74 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11314-6 pmid:12414200
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Consoli A,
    2. Vignoli C,
    3. Renieri L, et al
    . Assisted coiling of saccular wide-necked unruptured intracranial aneurysms: stent versus balloon. J Neurointerv Surg 2016;8:52–57 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011466 pmid:25428449
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Moret J,
    2. Cognard C,
    3. Weill A, et al
    . The “Remodelling Technique” in the treatment of wide neck intracranial aneurysms: angiographic results and clinical follow-up in 56 cases. Interv Neuroradiol 1997;3:21–35 pmid:20678369
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Shapiro M,
    2. Becske T,
    3. Sahlein D, et al
    . Stent-supported aneurysm coiling: a literature survey of treatment and follow-up. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:159–63 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2719 pmid:22033717
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Briganti F,
    2. Leone G,
    3. Marseglia M, et al
    . Endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms using flow-diverter devices: a systematic review. Neuroradiol J 2015;28:365–75 doi:10.1177/1971400915602803 pmid:26314872
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Zanaty M,
    2. Chalouhi N,
    3. Tjoumakaris SI, et al
    . Flow-diversion panacea or poison? Front Neurol 2014;5:21 doi:10.3389/fneur.2014.00021 pmid:24592254
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Lylyk P,
    2. Miranda C,
    3. Ceratto R, et al
    . Curative endovascular reconstruction of cerebral aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device: the Buenos Aires experience. Neurosurgery 2009;64:632–42; discussion 642–43; quiz N6 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000339109.98070.65 pmid:19349825
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. De Vries J,
    2. Boogaarts J,
    3. Van Norden A, et al
    . New generation of flow diverter (Surpass) for unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a prospective single-center study in 37 patients. Stroke 2013;44:1567–77 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000434 pmid:23686973
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. McAuliffe W,
    2. Wycoco V,
    3. Rice H, et al
    . Immediate and midterm results following treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:164–70 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2727 pmid:21979492
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Möhlenbruch MA,
    2. Herweh C,
    3. Jestaedt L, et al
    . The FRED flow-diverter stent for intracranial aneurysms: clinical study to assess safety and efficacy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:1155–61 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4251 pmid:25721079
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Byrne JV,
    2. Beltechi R,
    3. Yarnold JA, et al
    . Early experience in the treatment of intra-cranial aneurysms by endovascular flow diversion: a multicentre prospective study. PLoS One 2010;5:pii: e12492 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012492 pmid:20824070
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Phillips TJ,
    2. Wenderoth JD,
    3. Phatouros CC, et al
    . Safety of the Pipeline embolization device in treatment of posterior circulation aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1225–31 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3166 pmid:22678845
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Becske T,
    2. Kallmes DF,
    3. Saatci I, et al
    . Pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms: results from a multicenter clinical trial. Radiology 2013;267:858–68 doi:10.1148/radiol.13120099 pmid:23418004
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Nelson PK,
    2. Lylyk P,
    3. Szikora I, et al
    . The Pipeline embolization device for the intracranial treatment of aneurysms trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:34–40 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2421 pmid:21148256
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Pistocchi S,
    2. Blanc R,
    3. Bartolini B, et al
    . Flow diverters at and beyond the level of the circle of Willis for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Stroke 2012;43:1032–38 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.636019 pmid:22282890
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Yu SC,
    2. Kwok CK,
    3. Cheng PW, et al
    . Intracranial aneurysms: midterm outcome of Pipeline embolization device—a prospective study in 143 patients with 178 aneurysms. Radiology 2012;265:893–901 doi:10.1148/radiol.12120422 pmid:22996749
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. D'Urso PI,
    2. Lanzino G,
    3. Cloft HJ, et al
    . Flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms: a review. Stroke 2011; 42:2363–88 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.620328 pmid:21737793
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kocer N,
    2. Islak C,
    3. Kizilkilic O, et al
    . Flow Re-direction Endoluminal Device in treatment of cerebral aneurysms: initial experience with short-term follow-up results. J Neurosurg 2014;120:1158–71 doi:10.3171/2014.1.JNS131442 pmid:24628615
    CrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Mpotsaris A,
    2. Skalej M,
    3. Beuing O, et al
    . Long-term occlusion results with SILK flow diversion in 28 aneurysms: do recanalizations occur during follow-up? Interv Neuroradiol 2015;21:300–10 doi:10.1177/1591019915583119 pmid:26015522
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Kulcsár Z,
    2. Houdart E,
    3. Bonafé A, et al
    . Intra-aneurysmal thrombosis as a possible cause of delayed aneurysm rupture after flow-diversion treatment. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:20–25 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2370 pmid:21071538
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Chalouhi N,
    2. Jabbour P,
    3. Daou B, et al
    . A new protocol for anticoagulation with tirofiban during flow diversion. Neurosurgery 2016;78:670–74 doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000001071 pmid:26488330
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Struffert T,
    2. Saake M,
    3. Ott S, et al
    . Intravenous flat detector CT angiography for non-invasive visualisation of intracranial flow diverter: technical feasibility. Eur Radiol 2011;21:1797–801 doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2113 pmid:21720943
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. O'Kelly CJ,
    2. Krings T,
    3. Fiorella D, et al
    . A novel grading scale for the angiographic assessment of intracranial aneurysms treated using flow diverting stents. Interv Neuroradiol 2010;16:133–37 pmid:20642887
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Lubicz B,
    2. Levivier M,
    3. Sadeghi N, et al
    . Immediate intracranial aneurysm occlusion after embolization with detachable coils: a comparison between MR angiography and intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography. J Neuroradiol 2007;34:190–07 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2007.05.002 pmid:17582496
    CrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Attali J,
    2. Benaissa A,
    3. Soize S, et al
    . Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by flow diverter: comparison of three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography (3D-TOF-MRA) and contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) sequences with digital subtraction angiography as the gold standard. J Neurointerv Surg 2016;8:81–86 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011449 pmid:25352582
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Brinjikji W,
    2. Murad MH,
    3. Lanzino G, et al
    . Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow diverters: a meta-analysis. Stroke 2013;44:442–47 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.678151 pmid:23321438
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Chiu AH,
    2. Cheung AK,
    3. Wenderoth JD, et al
    . Long-term follow-up results following elective treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms with the Pipeline Embolization Device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:1728–34 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4329 pmid:25999412
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Kim M,
    2. Levy EI,
    3. Meng H, et al
    . Quantification of hemodynamic changes induced by virtual placement of multiple stents across a wide-necked basilar trunk aneurysm. Neurosurgery 2007;61:1305–12; discussion 1312–13 doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000306110.55174.30 pmid:18162911
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Fox B,
    2. Humphries WE,
    3. Doss VT, et al
    . Rupture of giant vertebrobasilar aneurysm following flow diversion: mechanical stretch as a potential mechanism for early aneurysm rupture. J Neurointerv Surg 2015; 7:e37 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011325.rep pmid:25361560
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Park JC,
    2. Lee DH,
    3. Kim JK, et al
    . Microembolism after endovascular coiling of unruptured cerebral aneurysms: incidence and risk factors. J Neurosurg 2016;124:777–83 doi:10.3171/2015.3.JNS142835 pmid:26381257
    CrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Cruz JP,
    2. Marotta T,
    3. O'Kelly C, et al
    . Enhancing brain lesions after endovascular treatment of aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:1954–58 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3976 pmid:24874528
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Valdivia y Alvarado M,
    2. Ebrahimi N,
    3. Benndorf G
    . Study of conformability of the new Leo Plus stent to a curved vascular model using flat-panel detector computed tomography (DynaCT). Neurosurgery 2009; 64(3 suppl):ons130–34; discussion ons134 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000336304.26756.21 pmid:19240562
    CrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Richter G,
    2. Engelhorn T,
    3. Struffert T, et al
    . Flat panel detector angiographic CT for stent-assisted coil embolization of broad-based cerebral aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1902–08 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0697 pmid:17893214
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  • Received August 18, 2016.
  • Accepted after revision October 23, 2016.
  • © 2017 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 38 (3)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 38, Issue 3
1 Mar 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
FRED Flow Diverter: A Study on Safety and Efficacy in a Consecutive Group of 50 Patients
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
H. Luecking, T. Engelhorn, S. Lang, P. Goelitz, S. Kloska, K. Roessler, A. Doerfler
FRED Flow Diverter: A Study on Safety and Efficacy in a Consecutive Group of 50 Patients
American Journal of Neuroradiology Mar 2017, 38 (3) 596-602; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5052

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
FRED Flow Diverter: A Study on Safety and Efficacy in a Consecutive Group of 50 Patients
H. Luecking, T. Engelhorn, S. Lang, P. Goelitz, S. Kloska, K. Roessler, A. Doerfler
American Journal of Neuroradiology Mar 2017, 38 (3) 596-602; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5052
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Brazilian FRED Registry: A Prospective Multicenter Study for Brain Aneurysm Treatment--The BRED Study
  • Endosaccular flow disruption: where are we now?
  • Usefulness of Silent MR Angiography for Intracranial Aneurysms Treated with a Flow-Diverter Device
  • On Flow Diversion: The Changing Landscape of Intracerebral Aneurysm Management
  • SAFE study (Safety and efficacy Analysis of FRED Embolic device in aneurysm treatment): 1-year clinical and anatomical results
  • Feasibility, complications, morbidity, and mortality results at 6 months for aneurysm treatment with the Flow Re-Direction Endoluminal Device: report of SAFE study
  • 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
  • Multicenter Experience with FRED Jr Flow Re-Direction Endoluminal Device for Intracranial Aneurysms in Small Arteries
  • Crossref (47)
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • SAFE study (Safety and efficacy Analysis of FRED Embolic device in aneurysm treatment): 1-year clinical and anatomical results
    Laurent Pierot, Laurent Spelle, Jérôme Berge, Anne-Christine Januel, Denis Herbreteau, Mohamed Aggour, Michel Piotin, Alessandra Biondi, Xavier Barreau, Charbel Mounayer, Chrisanthi Papagiannaki, Jean-Paul Lejeune, Jean-Yves Gauvrit, Anne-Laure Derelle, Emmanuel Chabert, Vincent Costalat
    Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2019 11 2
  • 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
    M. Killer-Oberpfalzer, N. Kocer, C.J. Griessenauer, H. Janssen, T. Engelhorn, M. Holtmannspötter, J.H. Buhk, T. Finkenzeller, G. Fesl, J. Trenkler, W. Reith, A. Berlis, K. Hausegger, M. Augustin, C. Islak, B. Minnich, M. Möhlenbruch
    American Journal of Neuroradiology 2018 39 5
  • Multicenter Experience with FRED Jr Flow Re-Direction Endoluminal Device for Intracranial Aneurysms in Small Arteries
    M.A. Möhlenbruch, O. Kizilkilic, M. Killer-Oberpfalzer, F. Baltacioglu, C. Islak, M. Bendszus, S. Cekirge, I. Saatci, N. Kocer
    American Journal of Neuroradiology 2017 38 10
  • Safety and Efficacy of Flow Diverter Treatment for Blood Blister–Like Aneurysm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Deyuan Zhu, Yazhou Yan, Puyuan Zhao, Guoli Duan, Rui Zhao, Jianmin Liu, Qinghai Huang
    World Neurosurgery 2018 118
  • Feasibility, complications, morbidity, and mortality results at 6 months for aneurysm treatment with the Flow Re-Direction Endoluminal Device: report of SAFE study
    Laurent Pierot, Laurent Spelle, Jérôme Berge, Anne-Christine Januel, Denis Herbreteau, Mohamed Aggour, Michel Piotin, Alessandra Biondi, Xavier Barreau, Charbel Mounayer, Chrisanthi Papagiannaki, Jean-Paul Lejeune, Jean-Yves Gauvrit, Vincent Costalat
    Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2018 10 8
  • Endosaccular flow disruption: where are we now?
    Pervinder Bhogal, Sundip Udani, Christophe Cognard, Michel Piotin, Patrick Brouwer, Nader-Antoine Sourour, Tommy Andersson, Levansri Makalanda, Ken Wong, David Fiorella, Adam S Arthur, Leonard LL Yeo, Michael Soderman, Hans Henkes, Laurent Pierot
    Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2019 11 10
  • Endovascular Metal Devices for the Treatment of Cerebrovascular Diseases
    Yueqi Zhu, Hongbo Zhang, Yiran Zhang, Huayin Wu, Liming Wei, Gen Zhou, Yuezhou Zhang, Lianfu Deng, Yingsheng Cheng, Minghua Li, Hélder A. Santos, Wenguo Cui
    Advanced Materials 2019 31 8
  • Usefulness of Silent MR Angiography for Intracranial Aneurysms Treated with a Flow-Diverter Device
    H. Oishi, T. Fujii, M. Suzuki, N. Takano, K. Teranishi, K. Yatomi, T. Kitamura, M. Yamamoto, S. Aoki, H. Arai
    American Journal of Neuroradiology 2019 40 5
  • Overview of Different Flow Diverters and Flow Dynamics
    Georgios A Maragkos, Adam A Dmytriw, Mohamed M Salem, Vincent M Tutino, Hui Meng, Christophe Cognard, Paolo Machi, Timo Krings, Vitor Mendes Pereira
    Neurosurgery 2020 86 Supplement_1
  • Stent-Assisted Coiling of Ruptured and Incidental Aneurysms of the Intracranial Circulation Using Moderately Flow-Redirecting, Braided Leo Stents—Initial Experience in 39 Patients
    Peter Voigt, Stefan Schob, Robert Jantschke, Ulf Nestler, Matthias Krause, David Weise, Donald Lobsien, Karl-Titus Hoffmann, Ulf Quäschling
    Frontiers in Neurology 2017 8

More in this TOC Section

  • SAVE vs. Solumbra Techniques for Thrombectomy
  • Contrast-Induced Encephalopathy after NeuroIR
  • CT Perfusion&Reperfusion in Acute Ischemic Stroke
Show more Interventional

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

Special Collections

  • AJNR Awards
  • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
  • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
  • Photon-Counting CT
  • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire