管道栓塞治疗先前支架化的残余及复发性脑动脉瘤。

Q1 Medicine
Interventional Neurology Pub Date : 2018-10-01 Epub Date: 2018-06-01 DOI:10.1159/000489018
Matthew T Bender, Chau D Vo, Bowen Jiang, Jessica K Campos, David A Zarrin, Risheng Xu, Erick M Westbroek, Justin M Caplan, Judy Huang, Rafael J Tamargo, Li-Mei Lin, Geoffrey P Colby, Alexander L Coon
{"title":"管道栓塞治疗先前支架化的残余及复发性脑动脉瘤。","authors":"Matthew T Bender,&nbsp;Chau D Vo,&nbsp;Bowen Jiang,&nbsp;Jessica K Campos,&nbsp;David A Zarrin,&nbsp;Risheng Xu,&nbsp;Erick M Westbroek,&nbsp;Justin M Caplan,&nbsp;Judy Huang,&nbsp;Rafael J Tamargo,&nbsp;Li-Mei Lin,&nbsp;Geoffrey P Colby,&nbsp;Alexander L Coon","doi":"10.1159/000489018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study assessed the safety and effectiveness of the Pipeline embolization device (PED) for persistent and recurrent aneurysms previously treated with either a vascular reconstruction device (VRD) or a flow diverter (FD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective, IRB-approved database was analyzed for patients treated with PED for aneurysms previously treated with a stent.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty procedures were performed on 18 patients, 11 with prior FD, 7 with VRD, and 2 previously treated with both. Overall, 15 aneurysms were saccular (75%), and size was 13.5 ± 7.6 mm. Location was internal carotid artery (ICA) in 14 cases (70%) and posterior circulation in 6 cases (30%). Average prior treatments were 1.7. Previously FD cases were re-treated at an average of 18.1 months from most recent treatment. Each case used 1 device, 82% with distal coverage and 82% with proximal coverage of prior stent. Balloon remodeling was performed in 3 cases (27%) and no in-stent thrombosis was observed. Previously VRD stent-coiled cases were re-treated at an average of 87.5 months. These cases used on average 1.9 devices, 89% with distal and 100% proximal coverage. Adjunctive coiling was performed in 1 case (11%), balloon remodeling in 5 cases (56%), and 2 cases (28%) developed thrombosis that resolved with abciximab. Re-VRD cases were longer (59.1 vs. 33.7 min, <i>p</i> = 0.02) than re-FD. Angiographic follow-up was available for 16 cases (80%). In re-FD, occlusion was complete in 56% and partial progressive in 33% at 17.1 months digital subtraction angiography. In re-VRD, occlusion was complete in 57% and partial progressive in 27% at 8.1 months. Two complications occurred (10%), including one asymptomatic cervical ICA occlusion and one stent occlusion with associated mortality (5%). Clinical follow-up was 17.8 months on average (range 0.5-51.9).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Salvage flow diversion for previously stented aneurysms is technically challenging but offers good prospects of aneurysm obliteration with acceptable complication rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":46280,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Neurology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000489018","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pipeline Embolization for Salvage Treatment of Previously Stented Residual and Recurrent Cerebral Aneurysms.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew T Bender,&nbsp;Chau D Vo,&nbsp;Bowen Jiang,&nbsp;Jessica K Campos,&nbsp;David A Zarrin,&nbsp;Risheng Xu,&nbsp;Erick M Westbroek,&nbsp;Justin M Caplan,&nbsp;Judy Huang,&nbsp;Rafael J Tamargo,&nbsp;Li-Mei Lin,&nbsp;Geoffrey P Colby,&nbsp;Alexander L Coon\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000489018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study assessed the safety and effectiveness of the Pipeline embolization device (PED) for persistent and recurrent aneurysms previously treated with either a vascular reconstruction device (VRD) or a flow diverter (FD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective, IRB-approved database was analyzed for patients treated with PED for aneurysms previously treated with a stent.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty procedures were performed on 18 patients, 11 with prior FD, 7 with VRD, and 2 previously treated with both. Overall, 15 aneurysms were saccular (75%), and size was 13.5 ± 7.6 mm. Location was internal carotid artery (ICA) in 14 cases (70%) and posterior circulation in 6 cases (30%). Average prior treatments were 1.7. Previously FD cases were re-treated at an average of 18.1 months from most recent treatment. Each case used 1 device, 82% with distal coverage and 82% with proximal coverage of prior stent. Balloon remodeling was performed in 3 cases (27%) and no in-stent thrombosis was observed. Previously VRD stent-coiled cases were re-treated at an average of 87.5 months. These cases used on average 1.9 devices, 89% with distal and 100% proximal coverage. Adjunctive coiling was performed in 1 case (11%), balloon remodeling in 5 cases (56%), and 2 cases (28%) developed thrombosis that resolved with abciximab. Re-VRD cases were longer (59.1 vs. 33.7 min, <i>p</i> = 0.02) than re-FD. Angiographic follow-up was available for 16 cases (80%). In re-FD, occlusion was complete in 56% and partial progressive in 33% at 17.1 months digital subtraction angiography. In re-VRD, occlusion was complete in 57% and partial progressive in 27% at 8.1 months. Two complications occurred (10%), including one asymptomatic cervical ICA occlusion and one stent occlusion with associated mortality (5%). Clinical follow-up was 17.8 months on average (range 0.5-51.9).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Salvage flow diversion for previously stented aneurysms is technically challenging but offers good prospects of aneurysm obliteration with acceptable complication rates.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46280,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interventional Neurology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000489018\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interventional Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000489018\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000489018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

简介:本研究评估了管道栓塞装置(PED)治疗持续性和复发性动脉瘤的安全性和有效性,之前用血管重建装置(VRD)或血流分流器(FD)治疗。方法:一个前瞻性的,经irb批准的数据库分析了先前接受过支架治疗的动脉瘤患者的PED治疗。结果:对18例患者进行了20次手术,其中11例既往患有FD, 7例患有VRD, 2例既往均接受过FD治疗。总体上,15个动脉瘤呈囊状(75%),大小为13.5±7.6 mm。颈动脉(ICA) 14例(70%),后循环6例(30%)。平均治疗前为1.7。以前的FD病例在最近一次治疗平均18.1个月后再次治疗。每个病例使用1个装置,82%覆盖远端,82%覆盖近端。3例(27%)行球囊重构,未见支架内血栓形成。先前的VRD支架卷曲病例平均在87.5个月后再次治疗。这些病例平均使用1.9个装置,89%覆盖远端,100%覆盖近端。辅助盘绕1例(11%),球囊重构5例(56%),2例(28%)血栓形成,经阿昔单抗治疗后消退。Re-VRD患者比re-FD患者时间更长(59.1分钟vs. 33.7分钟,p = 0.02)。血管造影随访16例(80%)。在17.1个月的数字减影血管造影中,re-FD中56%的患者闭塞完全,33%的患者部分进展。在re-VRD中,在8.1个月时,57%的患者完全闭塞,27%的患者部分进展。发生了2例并发症(10%),包括1例无症状颈椎ICA闭塞和1例支架闭塞,伴有相关死亡率(5%)。临床随访时间平均17.8个月(0.5 ~ 51.9个月)。结论:先前支架动脉瘤的恢复性血流转移在技术上具有挑战性,但在并发症发生率可接受的情况下为动脉瘤闭塞提供了良好的前景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Pipeline Embolization for Salvage Treatment of Previously Stented Residual and Recurrent Cerebral Aneurysms.

Pipeline Embolization for Salvage Treatment of Previously Stented Residual and Recurrent Cerebral Aneurysms.

Pipeline Embolization for Salvage Treatment of Previously Stented Residual and Recurrent Cerebral Aneurysms.

Introduction: This study assessed the safety and effectiveness of the Pipeline embolization device (PED) for persistent and recurrent aneurysms previously treated with either a vascular reconstruction device (VRD) or a flow diverter (FD).

Methods: A prospective, IRB-approved database was analyzed for patients treated with PED for aneurysms previously treated with a stent.

Results: Twenty procedures were performed on 18 patients, 11 with prior FD, 7 with VRD, and 2 previously treated with both. Overall, 15 aneurysms were saccular (75%), and size was 13.5 ± 7.6 mm. Location was internal carotid artery (ICA) in 14 cases (70%) and posterior circulation in 6 cases (30%). Average prior treatments were 1.7. Previously FD cases were re-treated at an average of 18.1 months from most recent treatment. Each case used 1 device, 82% with distal coverage and 82% with proximal coverage of prior stent. Balloon remodeling was performed in 3 cases (27%) and no in-stent thrombosis was observed. Previously VRD stent-coiled cases were re-treated at an average of 87.5 months. These cases used on average 1.9 devices, 89% with distal and 100% proximal coverage. Adjunctive coiling was performed in 1 case (11%), balloon remodeling in 5 cases (56%), and 2 cases (28%) developed thrombosis that resolved with abciximab. Re-VRD cases were longer (59.1 vs. 33.7 min, p = 0.02) than re-FD. Angiographic follow-up was available for 16 cases (80%). In re-FD, occlusion was complete in 56% and partial progressive in 33% at 17.1 months digital subtraction angiography. In re-VRD, occlusion was complete in 57% and partial progressive in 27% at 8.1 months. Two complications occurred (10%), including one asymptomatic cervical ICA occlusion and one stent occlusion with associated mortality (5%). Clinical follow-up was 17.8 months on average (range 0.5-51.9).

Conclusions: Salvage flow diversion for previously stented aneurysms is technically challenging but offers good prospects of aneurysm obliteration with acceptable complication rates.

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
Interventional Neurology
Interventional Neurology CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
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