RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Pipeline Embolization Device with or without Adjunctive Coil Embolization: Analysis of Complications from the IntrePED Registry
JF American Journal of Neuroradiology
JO Am. J. Neuroradiol.
FD American Society of Neuroradiology
SP 1127
OP 1131
DO 10.3174/ajnr.A4678
VO 37
IS 6
A1 Park, M.S.
A1 Kilburg, C.
A1 Taussky, P.
A1 Albuquerque, F.C.
A1 Kallmes, D.F.
A1 Levy, E.I.
A1 Jabbour, P.
A1 Szikora, I.
A1 Boccardi, E.
A1 Hanel, R.A.
A1 Bonafé, A.
A1 McDougall, C.G.
YR 2016
UL http://www.ajnr.org/content/37/6/1127.abstract
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