Treatment of basilar artery aneurysms with two braided stents: Two centers experience of low-profile visualized intraluminal support stents versus Pipeline flow diverters.

IF 1.3 Q4 NEUROIMAGING
Neuroradiology Journal Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-28 DOI:10.1177/19714009241242638
Bin Luo, Chao Wang, Jian Liu, Yisen Zhang, Kun Wang, Wenqiang Li, Ying Zhang
{"title":"Treatment of basilar artery aneurysms with two braided stents: Two centers experience of low-profile visualized intraluminal support stents versus Pipeline flow diverters.","authors":"Bin Luo, Chao Wang, Jian Liu, Yisen Zhang, Kun Wang, Wenqiang Li, Ying Zhang","doi":"10.1177/19714009241242638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Both low-profile visualized intraluminal support (LVIS)stents and Pipeline flow diverters (FDs) are therapeutic strategies for basilar artery (BA) aneurysms, but they have not been directly compared.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 132 consecutive patients with 139 BA aneurysms treated with either LVIS stent or Pipeline FDs were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for age, sex, hypertension, aneurysm size, shape, location, and duration of follow-up. The treatment results of these two braided stents were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LVIS stent was placed in 88 (63.3%) and Pipeline FDs in 51 (36.7%) procedures. Patients with Pipeline FDs tended to be younger and have less hypertension, whereas aneurysms had larger aneurysm size. After PSM, similar complete or near-complete occlusion rates (76.7% vs 73.3%, <i>p</i> = .766) and favorable functional outcomes (86.7% vs 90.0%, <i>p</i> = 1) were achieved in patients treated with LVIS stents and Pipeline FDs, respectively. Further comparisons were conducted at three different locations (basilar apex/basilar trunk/vertebrobasilar artery junction [VBJ]) separately, and the results showed a higher complete or near-complete aneurysm occlusion rate after Pipeline FD treatment than LVIS treatment (86.7% vs 59.2%, <i>p</i> = .012) only at VBJ, where a particularly high proportion of non-saccular shape (70.9%) and a male preponderance were noted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both braided stents were effective in the treatment of BA aneurysms, with good occlusion rates and favorable functional outcomes. Pipeline FD achieved a particularly higher aneurysm occlusion rate than LVIS stent at VBJ, where lesions often require reconstruction of the diseased vessel.</p>","PeriodicalId":47358,"journal":{"name":"Neuroradiology Journal","volume":" ","pages":"500-509"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11366196/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroradiology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19714009241242638","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROIMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Both low-profile visualized intraluminal support (LVIS)stents and Pipeline flow diverters (FDs) are therapeutic strategies for basilar artery (BA) aneurysms, but they have not been directly compared.

Methods: A total of 132 consecutive patients with 139 BA aneurysms treated with either LVIS stent or Pipeline FDs were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for age, sex, hypertension, aneurysm size, shape, location, and duration of follow-up. The treatment results of these two braided stents were compared.

Results: LVIS stent was placed in 88 (63.3%) and Pipeline FDs in 51 (36.7%) procedures. Patients with Pipeline FDs tended to be younger and have less hypertension, whereas aneurysms had larger aneurysm size. After PSM, similar complete or near-complete occlusion rates (76.7% vs 73.3%, p = .766) and favorable functional outcomes (86.7% vs 90.0%, p = 1) were achieved in patients treated with LVIS stents and Pipeline FDs, respectively. Further comparisons were conducted at three different locations (basilar apex/basilar trunk/vertebrobasilar artery junction [VBJ]) separately, and the results showed a higher complete or near-complete aneurysm occlusion rate after Pipeline FD treatment than LVIS treatment (86.7% vs 59.2%, p = .012) only at VBJ, where a particularly high proportion of non-saccular shape (70.9%) and a male preponderance were noted.

Conclusion: Both braided stents were effective in the treatment of BA aneurysms, with good occlusion rates and favorable functional outcomes. Pipeline FD achieved a particularly higher aneurysm occlusion rate than LVIS stent at VBJ, where lesions often require reconstruction of the diseased vessel.

用双编织支架治疗基底动脉瘤:两个中心的低调可视腔内支撑支架与管道导流器的对比经验。
背景:低位可视腔内支撑(LVIS)支架和管道血流分流器(FDs)都是基底动脉(BA)动脉瘤的治疗策略,但还没有对它们进行直接比较:方法:对139例基底动脉瘤患者中的132例进行了分析。采用倾向评分匹配法(PSM)控制年龄、性别、高血压、动脉瘤大小、形状、位置和随访时间。比较了这两种编织支架的治疗效果:结果:88 例(63.3%)手术植入了 LVIS 支架,51 例(36.7%)手术植入了 Pipeline FD。Pipeline FDs患者多为年轻人,高血压较少,而动脉瘤患者的动脉瘤尺寸较大。在 PSM 后,使用 LVIS 支架和 Pipeline FDs 治疗的患者分别获得了相似的完全或接近完全闭塞率(76.7% vs 73.3%,p = .766)和良好的功能预后(86.7% vs 90.0%,p = 1)。在三个不同位置(基底动脉顶/基底动脉干/椎-基底动脉交界处 [VBJ])分别进行了进一步比较,结果显示,Pipeline FD 治疗后动脉瘤完全或接近完全闭塞率高于 LVIS 治疗(86.7% vs 59.2%,p = .012),仅在 VBJ,非圆形比例特别高(70.9%),且男性居多:结论:两种编织支架都能有效治疗BA动脉瘤,具有良好的闭塞率和良好的功能效果。在病变往往需要重建病变血管的VBJ,管道FD的动脉瘤闭塞率比LVIS支架更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuroradiology Journal
Neuroradiology Journal NEUROIMAGING-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
101
期刊介绍: NRJ - The Neuroradiology Journal (formerly Rivista di Neuroradiologia) is the official journal of the Italian Association of Neuroradiology and of the several Scientific Societies from all over the world. Founded in 1988 as Rivista di Neuroradiologia, of June 2006 evolved in NRJ - The Neuroradiology Journal. It is published bimonthly.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信