Flow Diversion for Intracranial Aneurysms in Large‐Diameter Vessels: A Subanalysis From the SESSIA Study

IF 2.1 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
J. Vivanco-Suarez, A. Rodriguez-Calienes, M. Farooqui, Margarita Rabinovich, M. Abouelleil, D. Altschul, C. Feigen, J. Fifi, S. Matsoukas, F. Al‐Mufti, M. Malaga, M. Galecio-Castillo, A. Wakhloo, J. Singer, S. Ortega‐Gutierrez
{"title":"Flow Diversion for Intracranial Aneurysms in Large‐Diameter Vessels: A Subanalysis From the SESSIA Study","authors":"J. Vivanco-Suarez, A. Rodriguez-Calienes, M. Farooqui, Margarita Rabinovich, M. Abouelleil, D. Altschul, C. Feigen, J. Fifi, S. Matsoukas, F. Al‐Mufti, M. Malaga, M. Galecio-Castillo, A. Wakhloo, J. Singer, S. Ortega‐Gutierrez","doi":"10.1161/svin.123.000846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Flow diverters are now considered first‐line tools for treating intracranial aneurysms. However, few devices are available for patients with large‐diameter vessels (LDVs). Hence, we evaluated the performance of the largest diameter Surpass Streamline for aneurysms in LDVs.\n \n \n \n We performed a subanalysis of the SESSIA (Safety and Efficacy of the Surpass Streamline for Intracranial Aneurysms) multicenter cohort study of patients treated with Surpass Streamline between 2018 and 2021. Patients in whom a 5‐mm diameter Surpass Streamline was implanted were divided into 2 groups according to vessel diameter at the landing zones (LDV, ≥5.3 mm versus non‐LDV [N‐LDV], <5.3 mm). Efficacy was complete occlusion at final follow‐up. Safety was ischemic/hemorrhagic events and mortality up to 30 days.\n \n \n \n \n Thirty patients harboring 30 aneurysms were included. Fifteen cases were included per group (LDV versus N‐LDV). Baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, median aneurysm size (LDV, 11 mm versus N‐LDV, 10 mm), and location were similar. Vessel diameters at the proximal (LDV, 5.3 mm versus N‐LDV, 4.2 mm;\n P\n <0.001) and distal (5.6 versus 4.0 mm;\n P\n <0.001) flow diverter landing zones were different. Procedural characteristics (including balloon‐assisted angioplasty and stenting) were similar. At the final follow‐up (12±6 months), complete occlusion (LDV, 75% versus N‐LDV, 84%;\n P\n =0.548), and ischemic/hemorrhagic events (1 per group;\n P\n =1.00) were not different.\n \n \n \n \n The use of large‐diameter flow diverters for treating complex intracranial aneurysms arising in LDVs is technically feasible and safe. Comparative studies evaluating devices suitable for this patient population will provide valuable insights for the best device selection.\n","PeriodicalId":74875,"journal":{"name":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.123.000846","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Flow diverters are now considered first‐line tools for treating intracranial aneurysms. However, few devices are available for patients with large‐diameter vessels (LDVs). Hence, we evaluated the performance of the largest diameter Surpass Streamline for aneurysms in LDVs. We performed a subanalysis of the SESSIA (Safety and Efficacy of the Surpass Streamline for Intracranial Aneurysms) multicenter cohort study of patients treated with Surpass Streamline between 2018 and 2021. Patients in whom a 5‐mm diameter Surpass Streamline was implanted were divided into 2 groups according to vessel diameter at the landing zones (LDV, ≥5.3 mm versus non‐LDV [N‐LDV], <5.3 mm). Efficacy was complete occlusion at final follow‐up. Safety was ischemic/hemorrhagic events and mortality up to 30 days. Thirty patients harboring 30 aneurysms were included. Fifteen cases were included per group (LDV versus N‐LDV). Baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, median aneurysm size (LDV, 11 mm versus N‐LDV, 10 mm), and location were similar. Vessel diameters at the proximal (LDV, 5.3 mm versus N‐LDV, 4.2 mm; P <0.001) and distal (5.6 versus 4.0 mm; P <0.001) flow diverter landing zones were different. Procedural characteristics (including balloon‐assisted angioplasty and stenting) were similar. At the final follow‐up (12±6 months), complete occlusion (LDV, 75% versus N‐LDV, 84%; P =0.548), and ischemic/hemorrhagic events (1 per group; P =1.00) were not different. The use of large‐diameter flow diverters for treating complex intracranial aneurysms arising in LDVs is technically feasible and safe. Comparative studies evaluating devices suitable for this patient population will provide valuable insights for the best device selection.
颅内大直径动脉瘤的分流:来自SESSIA研究的亚分析
分流器现在被认为是治疗颅内动脉瘤的一线工具。然而,很少有设备可用于大直径血管(ldv)患者。因此,我们评估了最大直径超越流线在ldv动脉瘤中的表现。我们对2018年至2021年间接受超过流线治疗的患者进行了SESSIA(安全性和有效性的超过流线治疗颅内动脉瘤)多中心队列研究的亚分析。5 - mm直径的“超越流线”植入患者根据着陆区血管直径分为两组(LDV,≥5.3 mm vs非LDV [N - LDV], <5.3 mm)。疗效为最终随访时完全闭塞。安全性是30天内的缺血/出血性事件和死亡率。30例患者包含30个动脉瘤。每组15例(LDV vs N - LDV)。基线人口统计学、临床特征、中位动脉瘤大小(LDV, 11 mm vs N - LDV, 10 mm)和位置相似。近端LDV的血管直径为5.3 mm, N - LDV为4.2 mm;P <0.001)和远端(5.6 vs 4.0 mm;P <0.001)。手术特征(包括球囊辅助血管成形术和支架置入术)相似。在最后随访(12±6个月)时,完全闭塞(LDV, 75% vs N - LDV, 84%;P =0.548),缺血/出血性事件(每组1例;P =1.00)差异无统计学意义。使用大直径分流器治疗ldv产生的复杂颅内动脉瘤在技术上是可行和安全的。比较研究评估适合该患者群体的设备将为最佳设备选择提供有价值的见解。
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