Comparative Analysis of Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysm Treatment Outcomes and Complications with the Classic versus Flex Pipeline Embolization Devices and Phenom versus Marksman Microcatheter Delivery System: The Role of Microcatheter Choice on Complication Rate.

Tessa A Harland, Joshua Seinfeld, Andrew C White, David A Kumpe, Christopher D Roark, David E Case
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysm Treatment Outcomes and Complications with the Classic versus Flex Pipeline Embolization Devices and Phenom versus Marksman Microcatheter Delivery System: The Role of Microcatheter Choice on Complication Rate.","authors":"Tessa A Harland,&nbsp;Joshua Seinfeld,&nbsp;Andrew C White,&nbsp;David A Kumpe,&nbsp;Christopher D Roark,&nbsp;David E Case","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The second-generation pipeline embolization device (PED), flex, has improved opening and resheathing ability compared to the first-generation classic PED device. A previously reported single-institutional study suggests that the PED flex devices are associated with lower rates of complications. However, there was limited discussion regarding the complication rate with respect to microcatheter choice for PED delivery and deployment. The present study aims to evaluate outcomes of aneurysm treatment with PED flex versus classic along with the Phenom microcatheter versus Marksman microcatheter.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective, IRB-approved database of all patients who received a PED classic or PED flex device between January 2012 and July 2018 was analyzed. Microcatheter choice, patient demographics, medical comorbidities, aneurysm characteristics, treatment information, and outcome data were analyzed using univariate analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 75 PED procedures were analyzed. There was no significant difference in major complications between the PED classic and PED flex. However, those treated using the Marksman microcatheter were more likely to have a major complication (periprocedural hemorrhage or ischemic event; 16.6% vs. 0%, <i>p</i> = 0.0248) than those treated with the Phenom microcatheter. Within the PED flex cohort, all major complications were associated with the Marksman microcatheter (<i>p</i> = 0.0289).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present study does not replicate significantly fewer complications with PED flex but demonstrates a significant reduction in complications with the Phenom microcatheter. Ultimately, this suggests multiple factors are involved in achieving positive outcomes and low complication rates in PED treated unruptured cerebral aneurysms.</p>","PeriodicalId":88555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of vascular and interventional neurology","volume":"11 1","pages":"13-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6998803/pdf/jvin-11-1-3.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of vascular and interventional neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The second-generation pipeline embolization device (PED), flex, has improved opening and resheathing ability compared to the first-generation classic PED device. A previously reported single-institutional study suggests that the PED flex devices are associated with lower rates of complications. However, there was limited discussion regarding the complication rate with respect to microcatheter choice for PED delivery and deployment. The present study aims to evaluate outcomes of aneurysm treatment with PED flex versus classic along with the Phenom microcatheter versus Marksman microcatheter.

Methods: A retrospective, IRB-approved database of all patients who received a PED classic or PED flex device between January 2012 and July 2018 was analyzed. Microcatheter choice, patient demographics, medical comorbidities, aneurysm characteristics, treatment information, and outcome data were analyzed using univariate analyses.

Results: A total of 75 PED procedures were analyzed. There was no significant difference in major complications between the PED classic and PED flex. However, those treated using the Marksman microcatheter were more likely to have a major complication (periprocedural hemorrhage or ischemic event; 16.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.0248) than those treated with the Phenom microcatheter. Within the PED flex cohort, all major complications were associated with the Marksman microcatheter (p = 0.0289).

Conclusions: The present study does not replicate significantly fewer complications with PED flex but demonstrates a significant reduction in complications with the Phenom microcatheter. Ultimately, this suggests multiple factors are involved in achieving positive outcomes and low complication rates in PED treated unruptured cerebral aneurysms.

经典与Flex管道栓塞装置、Phenom与Marksman微导管输送系统对未破裂脑动脉瘤治疗效果及并发症的比较分析:微导管选择对并发症发生率的影响
目的:与第一代经典管道栓塞装置相比,第二代管道栓塞装置(PED)具有更好的打开和重新插管能力。先前报道的一项单一机构研究表明,PED柔性装置与并发症发生率较低有关。然而,关于微导管选择用于PED输送和部署的并发症发生率的讨论有限。本研究旨在评估PED flex与经典、Phenom微导管与Marksman微导管治疗动脉瘤的效果。方法:回顾性分析2012年1月至2018年7月期间接受PED经典或PED柔性装置的所有患者的irb批准数据库。采用单变量分析对微导管选择、患者人口统计学、医疗合并症、动脉瘤特征、治疗信息和结局数据进行分析。结果:共分析了75例PED手术。PED经典和PED屈曲在主要并发症方面无显著差异。然而,使用Marksman微导管治疗的患者更有可能出现主要并发症(术中出血或缺血性事件;16.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.0248)。在PED flex队列中,所有主要并发症均与Marksman微导管相关(p = 0.0289)。结论:目前的研究并没有重复PED flex的并发症显著减少,但显示了Phenom微导管的并发症显著减少。最终,这表明多种因素参与了PED治疗未破裂脑动脉瘤的积极结果和低并发症发生率。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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