Flow diverters for intracranial aneurysms

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (3-4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Venier ◽  
Beatrice Gardenghi ◽  
Giuseppe Lanzino ◽  
Stylianos K. Rammos

AbstractThe progressive establishment of endovascular management in treating intracranial aneurysms had lead to continuous technique advancements and development of innovative technologies. Flow diverters are “stent-like” devices currently used for complex unruptured aneurysms allowing endoluminal reconstruction of the parent artery and occlusion of the aneurysm sac. In the present article, we review the development of flow diversion devices through

2021 ◽  
pp. 159101992110034
Author(s):  
Andre Monteiro ◽  
Demetrius K Lopes ◽  
Amin Aghaebrahim ◽  
Ricardo Hanel

Purpose Flow-diverters have revolutionized the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms, offering a durable solution to aneurysms with high recurrence rates after conventional stent-assisted coiling. Events that occur after treatment with flow-diversion, such as in-stent stenosis (ISS) are not well understood and require further assessment. After assessing an animal model with Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT), we propose a concept that could explain the mechanism causing reversible ISS after treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow-diverters. Methods Six Pipeline Flex embolization devices (PED-Flex), six PED with Shield technology (PED-Shield), and four Solitaire AB devices were implanted in the carotid arteries (two stents per vessel) of four pigs. Intravascular optical coherence tomography (OCT) and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) images obtained on day 21 were compared to histological specimens. Results A case of ISS in a PED-Flex device was assessed with OCT imaging. Neointima with asymmetrical topography completely covering the PED struts was observed. Histological preparations of the stenotic area demonstrated thrombus on the surface of device struts, covered by neointima. Conclusion This study provides a plausible concept for reversible ISS in flow-diverters. Based on an observation of a previous experiment, we propose that similar cases of ISS are related to thrombus presence underneath endothelization, but further experiments focused on this phenomenon are needed. Optical Coherence Tomography will be useful tool when available for clinical use.


2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 270-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Fahed ◽  
Tim E Darsaut ◽  
Marc Kotowski ◽  
Igor Salazkin ◽  
Jean Raymond

Aim Flow diverters are increasingly used to treat aneurysms, but treatment is not always effective. The management of aneurysms that fail to occlude following flow diversion is problematic. We aimed to reproduce failures in an animal model and study re-treatment with additional flow diverters alone or with flow diverters and liquid embolic agent. Material and methods Twenty wide-necked aneurysms were created at the carotid-lingual bifurcation in 10 dogs, and were treated with flow diverters 4–6 weeks later. Follow-up angiography was performed at three months. Suitable residual aneurysms were randomly allocated: re-treatment with flow diverters alone ( n = 6), or with the injection of liquid embolic between two layers of flow diverters ( n = 4) or no re-treatment ( n = 2). Angiography was repeated three months later, followed by euthanasia, photography and pathology. Results Patent wide-necked aneurysms were produced in 17/20 attempts (85%); three months after flow diversion there were 15/17 (88%) residual aneurysms. In three cases, re-treatment was not possible because the flow diverter had prolapsed into the aneurysm, leaving 12 aneurysms to study. Re-treated aneurysms showed improved angiographic results at six months (median score of 2; P = 0.03), but residual aneurysms were present in all cases. Parent artery occlusion occurred in two aneurysms treated with flow diverter plus liquid embolic. At pathology, aneurysms were only partially filled with thrombus; leaks through the flow diverters were found in the neointima connecting the arterial lumen to residual aneurysms. Conclusion Re-treatment of residual flow-diverted experimental aneurysms with additional flow diverters did not lead to aneurysm occlusion.


2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 428-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willem Jan van Rooij ◽  
Ratna S Bechan ◽  
Jo P. Peluso ◽  
Menno Sluzewski

Flow diverter devices became available in our department in 2009. We considered treatment with flow diverters only in patients with aneurysms not suitable for surgery or conventional endovascular techniques. This paper presents our preliminary experience with flow diverters in a consecutive series of 550 endovascular aneurysm treatments. Between January 2009 and July 2013, 550 endovascular treatments for intracranial aneurysms were performed. Of these, 490 were first-time aneurysm treatments in 464 patients and 61 were additional treatments of previously coiled aneurysms in 51 patients. Endovascular treatments consisted of selective coiling in 445 (80.8%), stent-assisted coiling in 68 (12.4%), balloon-assisted coiling in 13 (2.4%), parent vessel occlusion in 12 (2.2%) and flow diverter treatment in 12 (2.2%). Eleven patients with 12 aneurysms were treated with flow diverters. Two patients had ruptured dissecting aneurysms. One patient with a basilar trunk aneurysm died of acute in stent thrombosis and another patient died of brain stem ischaemia at 32 months follow-up. One patient had ischaemia with permanent neurological deficit. Two aneurysms are still open at up to 30 months follow-up. Flow diversion was used in 2% of all endovascular treatments. Both our own poor results and the high complication rates reported in the literature have converted our initial enthusiasm to apprehension and hesitancy. The safety and efficacy profile of flow diversion should discourage the use of these devices in aneurysms that can be treated with other techniques.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens J Froelich ◽  
Nicholas Cheung ◽  
Johan AB de Lange ◽  
Jessica Monkhorst ◽  
Michael W Carr ◽  
...  

Objective Incomplete aneurysm occlusions and re-treatment rates of 52 and 10–30%, respectively, have been reported following endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms, raising clinical concerns regarding procedural efficacy. We compare residual, recurrence and re-treatment rates subject to different endovascular techniques in both ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms at a comprehensive state-wide tertiary neurovascular centre in Australia. Methods Medical records, procedural and follow-up imaging studies of all patients who underwent endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms between July 2010 and July 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Residuals, recurrences and re-treatment rates were assessed regarding initial aneurysm rupture status and applied endovascular technique: primary coiling, balloon- and stent-assisted coiling and flow diversion. Results Among 233 aneurysms, residual, recurrence and re-treatment rates were 27, 11.2 and 9.4%, respectively. Compared with unruptured aneurysms, similar residual and recurrence (p > .05), but higher re-treatment rates (4.5% vs. 19%; p < .001) were found for ruptured aneurysms. Residual, recurrence and re-treatment rates were: 13.3, 16 and 12% for primary coiling; 12, 12 and 10.7% for balloon-assisted coiling; 14.9, 7.5 and 4.5% for stent-assisted coiling; 91.9, 0 and 5.4% for flow diversion. Stent-assistance and flow-diversion were associated with lower recurrence and re-treatment rates, when compared with primary- and balloon-assisted coiling (p < .05). Conclusions Residuals and recurrences after endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms are less common than previously reported. Stent assistance and flow diversion seem associated with reduced recurrence- and re-treatment rates, when compared with primary- and balloon-assisted coiling. Restrained use of stents in ruptured aneurysms may be a contributing factor for higher recurrence/retreatment rates compared to unruptured aneurysms.


Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 86 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S3-S10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Luisa Kühn ◽  
Matthew J Gounis ◽  
Ajit S Puri

Abstract The introduction of flow diverter technology to the field of neurointervention has revolutionized the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. The therapy approach has shifted from intrasaccular aneurysm treatment to exclusion of the aneurysm from the blood circulation with remodeling of the parent artery. Previously, “difficult”-to-treat aneurysms including fusiform and blister aneurysms, but also aneurysms arising from a diseased vessel segment, can now be safely and permanently treated with flow diverters.  A little over a decade ago, after extensive bench testing and refinement of the flow diverter concept, the device was eventually available for clinical use and today it has become a standard treatment for intracranial aneurysms. Currently, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved flow diverters are the Pipeline Embolization Device (Medtronic) and the Surpass Streamline Flow Diverter (Stryker).  The devices can either be delivered or deployed via a standard femoral artery approach or a radial artery approach. Other considerations for catheter setup and device deployment strategies depending on aneurysm location or vessel anatomy are described.


Author(s):  
Islam El Malky ◽  
Ayman Zakaria ◽  
Essam Abdelhameed ◽  
Hazem Abdelkhalek

Introduction : Endovascular treatment for large and giant aneurysms has included either a reconstructive approach or a deconstructive approach by parent artery occlusion. 1,2 Stent‐assisted coiling and balloon‐assisted coiling were alternative techniques developed to deal with such complex aneurysms, but studies have shown less expected efficacy. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of the flow diverter stents for treating large and giant intracranial aneurysms and to examine possible predictors for radiological and clinical outcomes such as location and presence of branching artery, bifurcation, and adjuvant coiling. Methods : This study had been conducted on 65 consecutive patients with 65 large and giant aneurysms (size ≥ 10 mm) treated with flow diverters; Periprocedural complications were reported in all patients and clinical outcomes. Follow‐up angiography was done for 60 patients (92.3%) at 12 months. Results : The study included 65 patients who harbored 65 aneurysms. The median age was 55.5 years (IQR: 44.25 ‐ 62.75 years), the female represented 70.8 % of all patients. The clinical presentation had been reported (Headache, cranial nerve palsy, motor deficit, seizures, and visual field defect in 40 patients (61.5%), nine patients (13.8%), seven patients (10.8%), five patients (7.7%), and four patients (6.2%) respectively. The vascular risk factors had been reviewed (HTN, DM, smoking, and Hyperlipidemia in 25 patients (9.2%), Six patients (9.2%), sixteen (24.6%), and 10 patients (15.4%) respectively). The median size of aneurysms was 16.4 mm (IQR: 12.50 ‐ 23.85 mm) and the median neck width was 7.15 mm (IQR: 5.85‐10.24 mm). Fourteen aneurysms (21.4 %) had previous treatment, eleven aneurysms (16.9%) were treated by coils only, one case (1.5%) by assisted procedure, one case (1.5%) by previous FDS, and parent artery occlusion in one case (1.5%). Complete occlusion in 50 from 60 aneurysms (83.4%), neck remnant in 8 aneurysms (13.3%), and sac remnant in two aneurysms (3.3%). Periprocedural problems were encountered in 14 patients (21.5%) with morbidity in six patients (9.2%) and mortality in one patient (1.5%). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to discover possible predictors of combined mortality and morbidity and occlusion in Table (1). Conclusions : From this study, it could be concluded that Endovascular treatment of the large and giant aneurysms with flow diverters represents a safe method for treating this kind of complex intracranial aneurysms. Complex aneurysms with branching artery and bifurcation were associated with aneurysm persistence and complications respectively while the location of the aneurysm was the only predictor for clinical outcome.


2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. E2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Rajah ◽  
Sandra Narayanan ◽  
Leonardo Rangel-Castilla

Flow diversion has become a well-accepted option for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms. Given the significant treatment effect of flow diverters, numerous options have emerged since the initial Pipeline embolization device studies. In this review, the authors describe the available flow diverters, both endoluminal and intrasaccular, addressing nuances of device design and function and presenting data on complications and outcomes, where available. They also discuss possible future directions of flow diversion.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Aguilar Perez ◽  
Pervinder Bhogal ◽  
Rosa Martinez Moreno ◽  
Hansjörg Bäzner ◽  
Oliver Ganslandt ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo report our initial experience with the Medina Embolic Device (MED) in unruptured intracranial aneurysms either as sole treatment or in conjunction with additional devices.Methods15 consecutive patients (6 women, 9 men) with unruptured aneurysms were treated between September 2015 and April 2016. The aneurysm fundus measured at least 5 mm. We evaluated the angiographic appearances of treated aneurysms at the end of the procedure and at follow-up, the clinical status, complications, and requirement for adjunctive devices.ResultsThe MED was successfully deployed in all but one case and adjunctive devices were required in 10 cases. Aneurysm locations were middle cerebral artery bifurcation (n=3), internal carotid artery (ICA) bifurcation (n=1), supraclinoid ICA (n=5), posterior communicating artery (n=1), anterior communicating artery (n=2), cavernous ICA (n=2), distal basilar sidewall (n=1), basilar tip (n=1). Three patients had complications although none could be attributed to the MED. Immediate angiographic results were modified Raymond-Roy classification (mRRC) I=1, mRRC II=5, mRRC IIIa=3, mRRC IIIb=5, and one patient showed contrast stasis within the fundus of the aneurysm. Follow-up angiography was available in 11 patients, with four showing complete aneurysm exclusion, six with stable remnants and one patient with an enlarging neck remnant.ConclusionsThe MED represents a major step forward in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. It can result in rapid exclusion of an aneurysm from the circulation and has a good safety profile. We believe that the true value of the MED will be in combining its use with adjunctive devices such as endoluminal flow diverters that will result in rapid aneurysmal exclusion.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yazan J. Alderazi ◽  
Darshan Shastri ◽  
Tareq Kass-Hout ◽  
Charles J. Prestigiacomo ◽  
Chirag D. Gandhi

Flow diverters (pipeline embolization device, Silk flow diverter, and Surpass flow diverter) have been developed to treat intracranial aneurysms. These endovascular devices are placed within the parent artery rather than the aneurysm sac. They take advantage of altering hemodynamics at the aneurysm/parent vessel interface, resulting in gradual thrombosis of the aneurysm occurring over time. Subsequent inflammatory response, healing, and endothelial growth shrink the aneurysm and reconstruct the parent artery lumen while preserving perforators and side branches in most cases. Flow diverters have already allowed treatment of previously untreatable wide neck and giant aneurysms. There are risks with flow diverters including in-stent thrombosis, perianeurysmal edema, distant and delayed hemorrhages, and perforator occlusions. Comparative efficacy and safety against other therapies are being studied in ongoing trials. Antiplatelet therapy is mandatory with flow diverters, which has highlighted the need for better evidence for monitoring and tailoring antiplatelet therapy. In this paper we review the devices, their uses, associated complications, evidence base, and ongoing studies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document