Seyed Farzad Maroufi, Mohammad Sadegh Fallahi, Muhammad Waqas, Othman Bin-Alamer, Manisha Koneru, Joanna M Roy, Jane Khalife, Hamza A Shaikh, Daniel A Tonetti
{"title":"管道栓塞装置（PED）与血流重定向腔内装置（FRED）治疗颅内动脉瘤的比较：一项全面的系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Seyed Farzad Maroufi, Mohammad Sadegh Fallahi, Muhammad Waqas, Othman Bin-Alamer, Manisha Koneru, Joanna M Roy, Jane Khalife, Hamza A Shaikh, Daniel A Tonetti","doi":"10.1007/s10143-025-03595-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The performance of the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) and relatively newer double-layered Flow Re-Direction Endoluminal Device (FRED) have been studied for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms, but direct comparisons between PED and FRED are limited. The current systematic review aims at comparing the efficacy and safety of PED and FRED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched, and related records were identified. A meta-analysis of double-arm studies comparing PED and FRED was conducted on angiographic and clinical outcomes, retreatment rates, and complications following treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 15 retrospective double-arm studies, published from 2017 to 2023, were included. Studies were predominantly from the US and Germany. A total of 2231 patients across these studies were analyzed, with 1214 treated using PED and 1017 with FRED. Angiographic outcomes demonstrated no significant difference in occlusion rates between PED and FRED (P = 0.35). Retreatment rates trended lower with FRED (P = 0.08) but were not significant. Moreover, adjunctive coiling was more frequently utilized with FRED (P = 0.04). Complication rates were similar between the two groups. There was no significant difference in mortality between the two devices (P = 0.80).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review provides evidence on the comparable safety and effectiveness of FRED with PED. PED and FRED show comparable angiographic outcomes, with a trend toward lower retreatment rates with FRED. Complication rates and mortality are comparable, with slightly higher historical hemorrhage rate for PED.</p>","PeriodicalId":19184,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"475"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12130116/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between pipeline embolization device (PED) versus flow redirection endoluminal device (FRED) for intracranial aneurysms: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Seyed Farzad Maroufi, Mohammad Sadegh Fallahi, Muhammad Waqas, Othman Bin-Alamer, Manisha Koneru, Joanna M Roy, Jane Khalife, Hamza A Shaikh, Daniel A Tonetti\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10143-025-03595-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The performance of the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) and relatively newer double-layered Flow Re-Direction Endoluminal Device (FRED) have been studied for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms, but direct comparisons between PED and FRED are limited. The current systematic review aims at comparing the efficacy and safety of PED and FRED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched, and related records were identified. A meta-analysis of double-arm studies comparing PED and FRED was conducted on angiographic and clinical outcomes, retreatment rates, and complications following treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 15 retrospective double-arm studies, published from 2017 to 2023, were included. Studies were predominantly from the US and Germany. A total of 2231 patients across these studies were analyzed, with 1214 treated using PED and 1017 with FRED. Angiographic outcomes demonstrated no significant difference in occlusion rates between PED and FRED (P = 0.35). Retreatment rates trended lower with FRED (P = 0.08) but were not significant. Moreover, adjunctive coiling was more frequently utilized with FRED (P = 0.04). Complication rates were similar between the two groups. There was no significant difference in mortality between the two devices (P = 0.80).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review provides evidence on the comparable safety and effectiveness of FRED with PED. PED and FRED show comparable angiographic outcomes, with a trend toward lower retreatment rates with FRED. Complication rates and mortality are comparable, with slightly higher historical hemorrhage rate for PED.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurosurgical Review\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"475\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12130116/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurosurgical Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-025-03595-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-025-03595-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison between pipeline embolization device (PED) versus flow redirection endoluminal device (FRED) for intracranial aneurysms: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objectives: The performance of the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) and relatively newer double-layered Flow Re-Direction Endoluminal Device (FRED) have been studied for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms, but direct comparisons between PED and FRED are limited. The current systematic review aims at comparing the efficacy and safety of PED and FRED.
Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched, and related records were identified. A meta-analysis of double-arm studies comparing PED and FRED was conducted on angiographic and clinical outcomes, retreatment rates, and complications following treatment.
Results: A total of 15 retrospective double-arm studies, published from 2017 to 2023, were included. Studies were predominantly from the US and Germany. A total of 2231 patients across these studies were analyzed, with 1214 treated using PED and 1017 with FRED. Angiographic outcomes demonstrated no significant difference in occlusion rates between PED and FRED (P = 0.35). Retreatment rates trended lower with FRED (P = 0.08) but were not significant. Moreover, adjunctive coiling was more frequently utilized with FRED (P = 0.04). Complication rates were similar between the two groups. There was no significant difference in mortality between the two devices (P = 0.80).
Conclusion: This review provides evidence on the comparable safety and effectiveness of FRED with PED. PED and FRED show comparable angiographic outcomes, with a trend toward lower retreatment rates with FRED. Complication rates and mortality are comparable, with slightly higher historical hemorrhage rate for PED.
期刊介绍：
The goal of Neurosurgical Review is to provide a forum for comprehensive reviews on current issues in neurosurgery. Each issue contains up to three reviews, reflecting all important aspects of one topic (a disease or a surgical approach). Comments by a panel of experts within the same issue complete the topic. By providing comprehensive coverage of one topic per issue, Neurosurgical Review combines the topicality of professional journals with the indepth treatment of a monograph. Original papers of high quality are also welcome.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
