Indirect Flow Diversion for Off-Centered Bifurcation Aneurysms and Distant Small-Vessel Aneurysms, a Retrospective Proof of Concept Study From Five Neurovascular Centers

Background: Treatment of cerebral aneurysms using hemodynamic implants such as endosaccular flow disruptors and endoluminal flow diverters has gained significant momentum during recent years. The intended target zone of those devices is the immediate interface between aneurysm and parent vessel. The therapeutic success is based on the reduction of aneurysmal perfusion and the subsequent formation of a neointima along the surface of the implant. However, a subset of aneurysms–off-centered bifurcation aneurysms involving the origin of efferent branches and aneurysms arising from peripheral segments of small cerebral vessels–oftentimes cannot be treated via coiling or implanting a hemodynamic implant at the neck level for technical reasons. In those cases, indirect flow diversion–a flow diverter deployed in the main artery proximal to the parent vessel of the aneurysm–can be a viable treatment strategy, but clinical evidence is lacking in this regard.Materials and Methods: Five neurovascular centers contributed to this retrospective analysis of patients who were treated with indirect flow diversion. Clinical data, aneurysm characteristics, anti-platelet medication, and follow-up results, including procedural and post-procedural complications, were recorded.Results: Seventeen patients (mean age: 60.5 years, range: 35–77 years) with 17 target aneurysms (vertebrobasilar: n = 9) were treated with indirect flow diversion. The average distance between the flow-diverting stent and the aneurysm was 1.65 mm (range: 0.4–2.4 mm). In 15/17 patients (88.2%), perfusion of the aneurysm was reduced immediately after implantation. Follow-ups were available for 12 cases. Delayed opacification (OKM A3: 11.8%), reduction in size (OKM B1-3: 29.4%) and occlusion (D1: 47.1%) were observable at the latest investigation. Clinically relevant procedural complications and adverse events in the early phase and in the late subacute phase were not observed in any case.Conclusion: Our preliminary data suggest that indirect flow diversion is a safe, feasible, and effective approach to off-centered bifurcation aneurysms and distant small-vessel aneurysms. However, validation with larger studies, including long-term outcomes and optimized imaging, is warranted.

Vorapaxar as an Alternative for Ticagrelor Resistance in Neuroendovascular Intervention

BACKGROUND Perioperative dual‐antiplatelet therapy for flow diversion limits thromboembolic complications. However, resistance to dual‐antiplatelet therapy medications remains a concern for neuroendovascular intervention. To date, there is no standardized approach for resistance to ADP receptor antagonists. METHODS We report a case of ticagrelor resistance for flow diversion of an intracranial aneurysm treated with vorapaxar, as well as a narrative review of the literature for previous cases of ticagrelor resistance. RESULTS Flow diversion with the Pipeline embolization device was deployed for a left internal carotid artery blister aneurysm and bilateral internal carotid artery dissecting pseudoaneurysms. The patient had 3 thromboembolic complications while on dual‐antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor or prasugrel, leading to transition of antiplatelet therapy to vorapaxar. At 84 days follow‐up, the patient was fully recovered with complete occlusion of the aneurysms. CONCLUSION Our case suggests that vorapaxar is a promising alternative for patients with ticagrelor resistance in flow diversion–treated intracranial aneurysms. High‐quality randomized controlled trials are needed to elucidate the safety and efficacy of vorapaxar in neuroendovascular procedures.