管道栓塞装置 (PED) Shield 和 PED/PED Flex 血栓栓塞事件的比较:倾向评分匹配分析。

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurosurgery Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-23 DOI:10.1227/neu.0000000000002883
Felipe Ramirez-Velandia, Alejandro Enriquez-Marulanda, Jean Filo, Michael Young, Thomas B Fodor, Daniel Sconzo, Sandeep Muram, Justin H Granstein, Max Shutran, Philipp Taussky, Christopher S Ogilvy
{"title":"管道栓塞装置 (PED) Shield 和 PED/PED Flex 血栓栓塞事件的比较:倾向评分匹配分析。","authors":"Felipe Ramirez-Velandia, Alejandro Enriquez-Marulanda, Jean Filo, Michael Young, Thomas B Fodor, Daniel Sconzo, Sandeep Muram, Justin H Granstein, Max Shutran, Philipp Taussky, Christopher S Ogilvy","doi":"10.1227/neu.0000000000002883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The pipeline embolization device (PED) Flex with Shield technology is a third-generation flow diverter used for intracranial aneurysm treatment designed to decrease thrombogenicity through a phosphorylcholine coating. Herein, we aim to compare the rate of thromboembolic events in PED with Shield technology and PED without it through propensity score matching.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis of aneurysms treated with PED first-generation/PED Flex and PED with Shield between 2013 and 2023 at a single academic institution. Patients were matched through propensity score by controlling for confounding factors including age, smoking history, diabetes, previous subarachnoid hemorrhage, modified Rankin Scale pretreatment, location, aneurysm size, previous treatment, and clopidogrel or aspirin resistance. After matching, we evaluated for periprocedural and postoperative thromboembolic events. Data analysis was performed using Stata 14.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 543 patients with 707 aneurysms treated in 605 procedures were included in the analysis. From these, 156 aneurysms were treated with PED with Shield (22.07%) and 551 (77.93%) without Shield technology. Propensity score matching resulted in 84 matched pairs. The rate of thromboembolic events was 3.57% for PED Shield and 10.71% for PED first-generation/PED Flex ( P = .07), while retreatment rates were 2.38% for PED Shield and 8.32% for PED Flex ( P = .09). Complete occlusion at first ( P = .41) and last imaging follow-up ( P = .71), in-stent stenosis ( P = .95), hemorrhagic complications ( P = .31), and functional outcomes ( P = .66) were comparable for both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the first study in the literature performing a propensity scored-matched analysis comparing PED with PED with Shield technology. Our study suggests a trend toward lower thromboembolic events for PED Shield, even after controlling for aspirin and clopidogrel resistance, and a trend toward lower aneurysm retreatment rates with PED Shield, without reaching statistical significance.</p>","PeriodicalId":19276,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Thromboembolic Events Between Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) Shield and PED/PED Flex: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Felipe Ramirez-Velandia, Alejandro Enriquez-Marulanda, Jean Filo, Michael Young, Thomas B Fodor, Daniel Sconzo, Sandeep Muram, Justin H Granstein, Max Shutran, Philipp Taussky, Christopher S Ogilvy\",\"doi\":\"10.1227/neu.0000000000002883\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The pipeline embolization device (PED) Flex with Shield technology is a third-generation flow diverter used for intracranial aneurysm treatment designed to decrease thrombogenicity through a phosphorylcholine coating. Herein, we aim to compare the rate of thromboembolic events in PED with Shield technology and PED without it through propensity score matching.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis of aneurysms treated with PED first-generation/PED Flex and PED with Shield between 2013 and 2023 at a single academic institution. Patients were matched through propensity score by controlling for confounding factors including age, smoking history, diabetes, previous subarachnoid hemorrhage, modified Rankin Scale pretreatment, location, aneurysm size, previous treatment, and clopidogrel or aspirin resistance. After matching, we evaluated for periprocedural and postoperative thromboembolic events. Data analysis was performed using Stata 14.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 543 patients with 707 aneurysms treated in 605 procedures were included in the analysis. From these, 156 aneurysms were treated with PED with Shield (22.07%) and 551 (77.93%) without Shield technology. Propensity score matching resulted in 84 matched pairs. The rate of thromboembolic events was 3.57% for PED Shield and 10.71% for PED first-generation/PED Flex ( P = .07), while retreatment rates were 2.38% for PED Shield and 8.32% for PED Flex ( P = .09). Complete occlusion at first ( P = .41) and last imaging follow-up ( P = .71), in-stent stenosis ( P = .95), hemorrhagic complications ( P = .31), and functional outcomes ( P = .66) were comparable for both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the first study in the literature performing a propensity scored-matched analysis comparing PED with PED with Shield technology. Our study suggests a trend toward lower thromboembolic events for PED Shield, even after controlling for aspirin and clopidogrel resistance, and a trend toward lower aneurysm retreatment rates with PED Shield, without reaching statistical significance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19276,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurosurgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurosurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000002883\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000002883","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:采用 Shield 技术的管道栓塞装置(PED)Flex 是用于颅内动脉瘤治疗的第三代血流分流器,其设计目的是通过磷酰胆碱涂层降低血栓形成率。在此,我们旨在通过倾向得分匹配,比较使用 Shield 技术的 PED 和不使用该技术的 PED 的血栓栓塞事件发生率:我们对一家学术机构 2013 年至 2023 年期间使用第一代 PED/PED Flex 和带 Shield 的 PED 治疗的动脉瘤进行了回顾性分析。通过倾向评分对患者进行匹配,控制的混杂因素包括年龄、吸烟史、糖尿病、既往蛛网膜下腔出血、改良 Rankin 量表治疗前、位置、动脉瘤大小、既往治疗、氯吡格雷或阿司匹林耐受性。配对后,我们对围手术期和术中术后血栓栓塞事件进行了评估。数据分析使用Stata 14进行:共有543名患者的707个动脉瘤在605次手术中接受了治疗,其中156个动脉瘤在术后发生了血栓栓塞。其中,156 例动脉瘤采用了带 Shield 的 PED 治疗(22.07%),551 例(77.93%)未采用 Shield 技术。倾向评分匹配产生了 84 对匹配对。PED Shield 的血栓栓塞事件发生率为 3.57%,PED 第一代/PED Flex 为 10.71%(P = .07),而 PED Shield 的再治疗率为 2.38%,PED Flex 为 8.32%(P = .09)。两组患者在首次成像随访(P = .41)和最后一次成像随访(P = .71)时的完全闭塞率、支架内狭窄率(P = .95)、出血并发症(P = .31)和功能预后(P = .66)相当:结论:这是文献中第一项进行倾向评分匹配分析的研究,比较了PED和采用盾牌技术的PED。我们的研究表明,PED Shield 有降低血栓栓塞事件的趋势,即使在控制了阿司匹林和氯吡格雷耐受性后也是如此;PED Shield 有降低动脉瘤再治疗率的趋势,但未达到统计学意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Thromboembolic Events Between Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) Shield and PED/PED Flex: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Background and objectives: The pipeline embolization device (PED) Flex with Shield technology is a third-generation flow diverter used for intracranial aneurysm treatment designed to decrease thrombogenicity through a phosphorylcholine coating. Herein, we aim to compare the rate of thromboembolic events in PED with Shield technology and PED without it through propensity score matching.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of aneurysms treated with PED first-generation/PED Flex and PED with Shield between 2013 and 2023 at a single academic institution. Patients were matched through propensity score by controlling for confounding factors including age, smoking history, diabetes, previous subarachnoid hemorrhage, modified Rankin Scale pretreatment, location, aneurysm size, previous treatment, and clopidogrel or aspirin resistance. After matching, we evaluated for periprocedural and postoperative thromboembolic events. Data analysis was performed using Stata 14.

Results: A total of 543 patients with 707 aneurysms treated in 605 procedures were included in the analysis. From these, 156 aneurysms were treated with PED with Shield (22.07%) and 551 (77.93%) without Shield technology. Propensity score matching resulted in 84 matched pairs. The rate of thromboembolic events was 3.57% for PED Shield and 10.71% for PED first-generation/PED Flex ( P = .07), while retreatment rates were 2.38% for PED Shield and 8.32% for PED Flex ( P = .09). Complete occlusion at first ( P = .41) and last imaging follow-up ( P = .71), in-stent stenosis ( P = .95), hemorrhagic complications ( P = .31), and functional outcomes ( P = .66) were comparable for both groups.

Conclusion: This is the first study in the literature performing a propensity scored-matched analysis comparing PED with PED with Shield technology. Our study suggests a trend toward lower thromboembolic events for PED Shield, even after controlling for aspirin and clopidogrel resistance, and a trend toward lower aneurysm retreatment rates with PED Shield, without reaching statistical significance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neurosurgery
Neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
898
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurosurgery, the official journal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, publishes research on clinical and experimental neurosurgery covering the very latest developments in science, technology, and medicine. For professionals aware of the rapid pace of developments in the field, this journal is nothing short of indispensable as the most complete window on the contemporary field of neurosurgery. Neurosurgery is the fastest-growing journal in the field, with a worldwide reputation for reliable coverage delivered with a fresh and dynamic outlook.
×
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