Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR Awards, New Junior Editors, and more. Read the latest AJNR updates

Research ArticleNeurointervention

Current Trends and Results of Endovascular Treatment of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms at a Single Institution in the Flow-Diverter Era

O. Petr, W. Brinjikji, H. Cloft, D.F. Kallmes and G. Lanzino
American Journal of Neuroradiology June 2016, 37 (6) 1106-1113; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4699
O. Petr
aFrom the Departments of Neurologic Surgery (O.P., G.L.)
cDepartment of Neurosurgery, (O.P.), Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for O. Petr
W. Brinjikji
bRadiology (W.B., H.C., D.F.K., G.L.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for W. Brinjikji
H. Cloft
bRadiology (W.B., H.C., D.F.K., G.L.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for H. Cloft
D.F. Kallmes
bRadiology (W.B., H.C., D.F.K., G.L.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for D.F. Kallmes
G. Lanzino
aFrom the Departments of Neurologic Surgery (O.P., G.L.)
bRadiology (W.B., H.C., D.F.K., G.L.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for G. Lanzino
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: During the past several years, the number of unruptured aneurysms treated with endovascular techniques has increased. Traditionally, coil embolization was the treatment of choice for these lesions; however, recently flow diversion has become a viable, and in some cases superior, treatment option. The current single-center study presents results and trends of endovascular treatment with flow diversion and coil embolization in an unselected group of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms in a “real world“ setting during the flow-diverter era.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred ten patients with 318 treated unruptured aneurysms from June 2009 to May 2015 were included. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, aneurysm/treatment characteristics, and outcomes were collected prospectively. We studied the following: intensive care unit admission/reasons, perioperative and mid-/long-term complications, target aneurysm rupture, retreatment/recurrence rates, and long-term neurologic outcome using the mRS.

RESULTS: The flow-diverter group had a larger mean aneurysm size (12.3 ± 8.6 mm versus 8.7 ± 6.3 mm, P < .0001). There were no significant differences in the immediate (P = .43) and mid-/long-term complication rates (P = .54) between groups. Periprocedural neurologic morbidity and mortality rates were 2.1% and 0.5% in the coiling group and 2.5% and 1.6% in the flow-diverter group. Patients with coiling were more likely to be retreated than those with flow diversion (14.8% versus 5.7%, P = .009). Worsening of the mRS due to the target aneurysm was noted in only 3.2% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS: The endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms can be performed with very low rates of neurologic complications. Both flow-diverter and coil therapy were safe and effective.

ABBREVIATIONS:

FD
flow diverter
ICU
intensive care unit
PED
Pipeline Embolization Device

During the past several years, the number of unruptured aneurysms treated with endovascular techniques has increased. Traditionally coil embolization was the treatment of choice for these lesions; however, the introduction of endoluminal flow diversion has heralded the beginning of a new endovascular era. Flow diversion achieves high rates of aneurysm occlusion with acceptable safety profiles.1⇓⇓⇓⇓–6 However, with increasing experience and widespread use of flow diversion, several problems and complications have been recognized.7,8 These include intraparenchymal hemorrhage, postprocedural subarachnoid hemorrhage, and ischemic stroke.9,10

Newer endovascular treatment options allow better patient selection for flow-diversion and coiling techniques. At this stage, the potential influence of flow diversion on the use of coils in treatment of intracranial aneurysms remains unknown.11 These devices are being used in greater numbers of patients with various aneurysm locations and morphologies.6,12⇓–14 While observing the changing endovascular treatment trends is interesting, it is crucial to assess the risk-benefit ratio for treatment by flow diverters (FDs) compared with coiling. The current single-center study presents results and trends of endovascular treatment with flow diversion and coil embolization in a group of unselected patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms in a “real world” setting.

Materials and Methods

Patient Population and Data Collection

Following institutional review board approval, all patients included in a prospective database of unruptured aneurysms from June 2009 to May 2015 were included in this study. Information collected in this database included patient demographics and baseline clinical characteristics, aneurysm characteristics, treatment characteristics, and treatment outcomes. Patient demographic data collected included age, sex, baseline symptoms, baseline neurologic status, history of subarachnoid hemorrhage, and family history of intracranial aneurysms. Aneurysm characteristics included location and size. Treatment characteristics included type of device used, number of flow diverters used, and use of stent or balloon assistance.

The periprocedural pharmacologic protocol for patients undergoing flow-diverter therapy was uniform throughout the study period. Starting clopidogrel (Plavix), 75 mg, and aspirin, 325 mg, daily for 5 days before the procedure was recommended. Postoperatively, patients were maintained on the same clopidogrel and aspirin dosage for 3 months. After 3 months, clopidogrel was discontinued for patients undergoing on-label treatment (ie, aneurysms of the internal carotid artery proximal to the takeoff of the posterior communicating artery). For cases that were not off-label, and especially in high-risk locations, we have continued antiplatelet therapy for a longer time due to a potentially higher risk of thromboembolic events. Patients with aneurysms distal to the origin of the posterior communicating artery or involving the posterior circulation were usually maintained on clopidogrel for a longer time, and the antiplatelet therapy was recommended according to the results of their follow-up conventional angiography. After discontinuation of clopidogrel, low-dose aspirin (81 mg/day) indefinitely was recommended. Loading doses of clopidogrel and aspirin were given on the day before or the day of the procedure for patients who were not electively admitted. Platelet reactivity was not tested in any patient.

Outcomes

Treatment outcomes included intraprocedural and periprocedural technical events, clinical events (including aneurysm perforation, thrombosis, neurologic symptoms, medical symptoms, ophthalmologic symptoms, and groin complications), and late technical and clinical events at follow-up. Periprocedural complications were defined as those occurring within 30 days following the procedure, and late events were defined as events occurring after 30 days. Clinical follow-up was collected by telephone within the first 30 days, at the time of radiographic follow-up at 6 and 12 months and 3 years, and by telephone at 24 months. Clinical follow-up was obtained by a specialized nurse not directly involved with the original procedure. At the time of follow-up, patients were asked to rate themselves on the basis of the modified Rankin Scale. Patients were also asked to specify the reason for any score higher than zero. A baseline assessment, following the same methodology, was also obtained at the first encounter before aneurysm treatment.

For patients with flow diverters, radiologic follow-up with conventional angiography was recommended at 6, 12, and 36 months, and for patients with coiling, conventional angiography or MRA was recommended 6 or 12 months after the original procedure, depending on aneurysm characteristics. Afterward, imaging follow-up for patients with coiling was individualized according to various patient and aneurysm factors. Aneurysm occlusion on follow-up angiography, MRA, and/or CTA was categorized as “complete” (no filling of the aneurysm sac), “near-complete” (>90% occlusion), and “incomplete” (<90% occlusion). We also reported FD angiographic outcomes by the number of FDs used in treatment.

We studied the following outcomes: 1) the presence of perioperative complications, 2) mid- and long-term complications, 3) target aneurysm rupture, 4) retreatment rates, 5) major recurrence rates, and 6) long-term neurologic outcome. Long-term neurologic outcome was assessed by using the modified Rankin Scale and with the methodology detailed above. We also determined whether neurologic disability was secondary to the aneurysm or other symptoms (ie, back pain, intercurrent nonrelated illness, and so forth). “Neurologic morbidity” was defined as any neurologic deficit that appeared either due to target aneurysms or their endovascular treatment. “Neurologic mortality” was defined as any death of the patient related to target aneurysms and/or their treatment complications.

Statistical Analysis

Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between the flow-diverter and coiling groups. Descriptive statistics are presented as means and proportions. Means are presented with SDs. Categoric variables were compared by using a χ2 test, and continuous variables were compared by using a Student t test. Statistical significance was a P value < .05. All statistical analysis was performed by using JMP 10.0 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina).

Results

Patient Population

During the study period (September 2009 to April 2015), 332 patients were recommended for endovascular treatment of 341 unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Twenty-two patients with 23 target aneurysms were excluded due to missing Minnesota Research Authorization. Three hundred ten patients with 318 target aneurysms treated with endovascular coiling or flow diverters were included in the study. One hundred ninety-six aneurysms were initially treated with coiling, and 87 aneurysms were initially treated with flow diversion. Thirty-five aneurysms were treated with flow diversion following recanalization after coiling (these aneurysms were either coiled at other institutions or coiled at our institution prior to the study period). Of the 318 target aneurysms treated during the study period, 34 required retreatment. Thus, there were 352 aneurysm treatments during the study period. Demographic and aneurysm characteristics are listed in Table 1. Two hundred forty-nine patients (80.3%) were women, and 61 patients (19.7%) were men. The mean age at presentation was 57.4 years (range, 20–83 years). Most of the treated aneurysms were asymptomatic (249 aneurysms, 78.3%), while 69 aneurysms (21.7%) were symptomatic. Headache (11.0%) and visual problems (5.7%) were the most common presenting symptoms. Two hundred ten aneurysms (66.0%) were incidentally discovered.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1:

Demographic characteristics

Radiologic follow-up was available for 290 aneurysms (91.2%), while 28 aneurysms (8.8%) have not yet undergone radiologic follow-up because they were recently treated. The mean length of radiologic follow-up was 20 months (range, 0–67 months), and the mean clinical follow-up was 23.4 months (range, 1–67 months). From 2009 to 2014, the proportion of aneurysms treated with flow diversion increased from 15.8% to 48.8% (On-line Fig 1). Accordingly, in the proximal (to the origin of the posterior communicating artery) ICA aneurysm group, the proportion of aneurysms treated with flow diverters increased from 27.3% to 88.9% (On-line Fig 2).

Basic demographic characteristics between the 2 groups are summarized in Table 1. The flow-diverter group had a higher mean aneurysm size (12.3 ± 8.6 mm versus 8.7 ± 6.3 mm, P < .0001). There were more large and giant aneurysms in the FD group compared with the coiling group (26.2% versus 9.7%, P < .0001). There was a significant difference in the location of treated aneurysms between the 2 groups (P < .0001): Twenty-six cavernous sinus aneurysms (21.3%) were treated with FDs compared with 1 (0.5%) in the coil embolization group; 70 (57.4%) supraclinoid/paraclinoid aneurysms were treated in the FD group versus 34 (17.3%) aneurysms in the coiling group. All anterior cerebral artery/anterior communicating artery aneurysms (56/17.6%) were treated with coiling only. Characteristics of treated aneurysms are summarized in Table 1.

Angiographic Results

Angiographic results and basic characteristics of techniques and devices are listed in Table 2. Radiologic follow-up was available for 290 (91.2%) aneurysms, after a mean time of 20 months (range, 0–67 months), while 28 aneurysms (8.8%) have not yet undergone radiologic follow-up.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2:

Technical and angiographic outcomesa

Complete occlusion at the last radiologic follow-up was achieved in 165 (51.9%) aneurysms, and near-complete occlusion, in 112 (35.2%) aneurysms. Among patients with at least 6 months of imaging follow-up, the complete occlusion rate was 55.1% (147/267) and the near-complete occlusion rate was 34.5% (92/267). For patients with flow diverters with 6 months of imaging follow-up, the complete occlusion rate was 64.4% (67/104) and the near-complete occlusion rate was 22.1% (23/104). For patients with coiling with at least 6 months of imaging follow-up, the complete occlusion rate was 49.1% (80/163) and the near-complete occlusion rate was 42.3% (69/163).

Of 352 endovascular treatments and 318 treated unruptured aneurysms, major recurrences were present and retreated in 29 aneurysms (14.8%) in the coiling group. In the FD group, there were no instances of recanalization; however, 7 aneurysms (5.7%) were retreated due to persistent filling of the aneurysm sac. The rate of retreatment was significantly higher in the coiling group (P = .009). Of 29 aneurysm retreatments in the coiling group, 18 (9.2%) were retreated with recoiling; 2 (1.0%), with surgical clipping; and 8 (4.1%), with FDs. All 7 retreatments (5.7%) from the FD group were retreated with the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED; Covidien, Irvine, California).

In the FD group, the overall rate of complete occlusion at last follow-up was 56.6% (69/122) and the near-complete occlusion rate was 21.3% (26/122). Complete occlusion rates were 49.5% (45/91) for patients treated with 1 FD, 66.7% (12/18) for patients treated with 2 FDs, and 92.3% (12/13) for patients treated with ≥3 FDs. These data are summarized in Table 3.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3:

Outcomes by number of flow diverters

Technical Outcomes and Immediate Complications

Immediate complications following the endovascular procedure occurred in 32 patients (10.3%). These complications included 20 patients (10.6%) from the coiling group and 12 patients (9.8%) from the FD group and are summarized in Table 4. Seven patients experienced TIAs (2.3%), and 1 patient noted a deterioration of ophthalmoplegia (0.3%). There was no significant difference in the immediate complication rate between both groups (P = .43). Neurologic mortality rates were 0.5% in the coiling group and 1.6% in the FD group (P = .70). Neurologic morbidity rates were 2.1% in the coiling group and 2.5% in the FD group (P = .85).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4:

Clinical outcomes

The mean length of the hospital stay was not significantly different between the 2 groups (1.2 days for the coiling group and 1.3 days for the FD group, P = .54). There was a decreasing trend in the proportion of patients with flow diverters going to the intensive care unit (ICU) between 2009 and 2014 (100% to 15.8%). The same was true for patients with coiling (50% to 16.7%) (On-line Fig 3).

Midterm and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes

Midterm and long-term complications following endovascular procedures occurred in 12 patients (3.9%) and are listed in Table 4. Midterm/long-term complications occurred in 6 patients (3.2%) from the coiling group and 6 patients (4.9%) from the FD group (P = .54). Six patients (1.9%) had thromboembolic complications, and 4 patients (1.3%) experienced periorbital pain. Only 1 of all mid-/long-term complications (0.3%) resulted in a permanent neurologic deficit. This 73-year-old woman with a left-sided giant symptomatic carotid cavernous aneurysm treated with flow diversion developed a permanent mild right-sided hemiparesis.

Clinical follow-up with mRS assessment before and after treatment was available for all patients, with a mean follow-up time of 23.4 months (range, 1–67 months). The mean length of clinical follow-up was not significantly different between groups (24.5 months; range, 1–67 months in the coiling group; and 22.4 months; range, 1–61 months in the FD group).

Ten patients (3.2%) reported mRS worsening due to the target aneurysm or endovascular therapy (7 in the coiling group and 3 in the FD group). Three patients experienced postoperative rupture (1.0%). Twenty-two patients (7.1%) died during the study period; however, only 3 (1.0%) of the deaths were related to their target aneurysms or stroke. One patient died following delayed rupture of a previously coiled unruptured aneurysm, 1 patient died from a distal intraparenchymal hemorrhage 8 days after treatment with a PED, and 1 patient had a posttreatment rupture from a giant left ICA aneurysm 11 months after PED deployment. Long-term neurologic outcomes are listed in Table 5. A summary of patients who experienced postoperative rupture is provided in Table 6.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5:

Aneurysm-related clinical outcomes

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 6:

Cases of aneurysm rupture posttreatment

Discussion

Our consecutive prospective series of 318 aneurysms in 310 unselected patients demonstrated that endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms can be performed with low rates of neurologic complications and high rates of satisfactory angiographic occlusion. Both flow-diverter and coil therapy were safe and effective. However, coil treatment was associated with higher rates of recurrence and retreatment. Only 3.2% of patients noticed a deterioration of symptoms due to aneurysm or endovascular treatment. Our study also demonstrated that since the introduction of flow diversion at our institution, there has been a significant upward trend in the use of FDs as approximately 50% of unruptured aneurysms are now treated by using these methods. Given the high safety profile of endovascular treatment, we have stopped routinely admitting patients to the ICU for monitoring posttreatment and are now sending more patients to a hospital floor after a brief stay in the postoperative recovery unit. These findings are important because they highlight the outcomes of contemporary endovascular treatment options of unruptured aneurysms in a real world setting and in a consecutive series of unselected patients.

Angiographic Outcomes

The incomplete degree of angiographic aneurysm occlusion and the risk of aneurysm recurrence remain the major limitations of endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms.15 In our series, we found cumulative complete/near-complete aneurysm occlusion rates of 87.1%. Cumulative complete/near-complete occlusion rates were 92.9% in the coiling group and 77.9% in the FD group. The high rate of angiographic occlusion at follow-up in aneurysms treated with coil embolization that we observed is in line with other recently published study results. For example, in a series of 4665 treated unruptured aneurysms, Shigematsu et al16 demonstrated a cumulative complete/near-complete aneurysm occlusion rate of 89.6%. Of these, 2690 aneurysms (57.7%) were completely occluded and 1490 (31.9%) had small residual necks. The rate of incomplete occlusion following coiling ranged from 1.2% to 20.8% in larger studies,17⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–23 similar to our finding of 8% in the coiling group.

The rate of complete occlusion in the FD group with at least 6 months of follow-up of 64.4% is lower than that in other flow-diverter studies; however, the low rate of retreatment (6%) is in line with those previously reported.24⇓⇓⇓–28 In the Pipeline for Uncoilable or Failed Aneurysms Study,24 the rate of complete occlusion was 82% at 6 months and 86% at 12 months. Likewise, in a large single-center consecutive series of 54 patients, Lylyk et al25 found high rates of complete aneurysm occlusion of 93% and 96% at 6 and 12 months, respectively.

In our series, we encountered 3 cases of posttreatment rupture. In comparison, the Cerebral Aneurysm Rerupture After Treatment (CARAT) investigators reported annual rates of rupture after 1 year of 0.11% (95% CI, 0%–0.63%) for coiling. However, rerupture rates of incompletely obliterated aneurysms were as high as 17.6% during a mean follow-up of 4 years, when <70% of the aneurysm was occluded. In large series of flow-diversion treatments,2,27⇓⇓–30 the incidence of aneurysm rupture was found to be between 0.4% and 2.6%. Brinjikji et al31 reported similar results (3%) in their meta-analysis of published case series.

Clinical Outcomes

In our series, we observed neurologic morbidity and mortality rates of 2.3% and 1.0% for patients, respectively. Only a minority of patients (3.2%) reported mRS worsening related to the target aneurysm or endovascular therapy (3.7% in the coiling group and 2.5% in the FD group). Neurologic morbidity and mortality rates in the FD group were 2.5% and 1.6%, respectively. This is lower than that reported in the International Retrospective Study of the Pipeline Embolization Device (IntrePED), which reported a combined neurologic morbidity and mortality rate of 8.4%.29 This rate may be due to patient selection because the proportion of patients with treated non-ICA aneurysms in our study was lower than that in IntrePED. Other previously published studies8,26,32⇓–34 have reported morbidity and mortality rates following FD treatment ranging from 0% to 12% and 0% to 7%, respectively.31

During our study period, we have changed our daily practice of admitting patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms after treatment directly to the ICU. Arias et al35 showed that most significant postprocedural events (74%) after uncomplicated aneurysm intervention occur within 4 hours. These events become less frequent with increasing time. Likewise, Eisen et al36 found that in the absence of intraoperative events with the potential for ongoing cerebral ischemia, most patients undergoing elective endovascular treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms can be managed without direct ICU admission. Our experience and findings have been similar.37 Improved ICU admission rates are likely due to a combination of increasing operator experience and patient selection.

Limitations

The limitations of this study are related to the absence of randomization and the variable duration of follow-up. However, the data for all patients were collected prospectively. This was a single-center case series of aneurysms treated by a group of experienced neurointerventionalists and endovascular neurosurgeons. Thus, our data may not be generalizable to other practices. With increasing experience with the PED, the off-label use of the PED has been widening in our practice, which could contribute to higher complication rates. Another limitation of the study is that there was no independent assessment of angiographic or clinical outcomes. The determination of final radiologic results was by the treating physician. In addition, there were significant differences in the baseline characteristics of patients undergoing coiling and flow-diverter therapy, which could confound our statistical analyses. These limitations notwithstanding, our study summarizes the results in an unselected group of patients with unruptured aneurysms in a real world setting and provides a contemporary view indicating that both endovascular techniques are safe and clinically effective in treating unruptured intracranial aneurysms. No patient was lost to follow-up. Moreover, clinical outcome, in accordance with International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial methodology, was by a patient self-assessment.38

Conclusions

Our study of >300 patients with 318 unruptured aneurysms treated with flow-diverter therapy or coil embolization found that endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms is both safe and effective. Coil embolization was associated with higher recurrence and retreatment rates, but the rates of poor neurologic outcome were similar between groups. Flow diversion has been a disruptive technology at our institution because >50% of unruptured aneurysms are now treated with this technique. Last, we found that in most cases, routine ICU admission is not necessary, and we have changed our practice accordingly. Our findings highlight the safety and efficacy profile of the endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms in a real world setting.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures: David F. Kallmes—UNRELATED: Board Membership: GE Healthcare (Cost-Effectiveness Board)*; Consultancy: ev3/Covidien/Medtronic,* Comments: planning and implementing clinical trials; Grants/Grants Pending: Sequent Medical,* SurModics,* NeuroSigma,* Codman,* Medtronic,* MicroVention*; Comments: preclinical research and clinical trials; Travel/Accommodations/Meeting Expenses Unrelated to Activities Listed: Medtronic,* Comments: presentation at an FDA panel meeting. Giuseppe Lanzino—UNRELATED: Consultancy: Covidien.* *Money paid to the institution.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Yu SC,
    2. Kwok CK,
    3. Cheng PW, et al
    . Intracranial aneurysms: midterm outcome of Pipeline embolization device—a prospective study in 143 patients with 178 aneurysms. Radiology 2012;265:893–901 doi:10.1148/radiol.12120422 pmid:22996749
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Saatci I,
    2. Yavuz K,
    3. Ozer C, et al
    . Treatment of intracranial aneurysms using the Pipeline flow-diverter embolization device: a single-center experience with long-term follow-up results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1436–46 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3246 pmid:22821921
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Deutschmann HA,
    2. Wehrschuetz M,
    3. Augustin M, et al
    . Long-term follow-up after treatment of intracranial aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device: results from a single center. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:481–86 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2790 pmid:22158922
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Maimon S,
    2. Gonen L,
    3. Nossek E, et al
    . Treatment of intra-cranial aneurysms with the SILK flow diverter: 2 years' experience with 28 patients at a single center. Acta Neurochir 2012;154:979–87 doi:10.1007/s00701-012-1316-2 pmid:22402875
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Chiu AH,
    2. Cheung AK,
    3. Wenderoth JD, et al
    . Long-term follow-up results following elective treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:1728–34 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4329 pmid:25999412
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. McAuliffe W,
    2. Wycoco V,
    3. Rice H, et al
    . Immediate and midterm results following treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:164–70 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2727 pmid:21979492
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Lanzino G
    . Editorial: flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms. J Neurosurg 2013;118:405–06; discussion 406–07 doi:10.3171/2012.7.JNS12593 pmid:23176330
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. McDonald RJ,
    2. McDonald JS,
    3. Kallmes DF, et al
    . Periprocedural safety of Pipeline therapy for unruptured cerebral aneurysms: analysis of 279 patients in a multihospital database. Interv Neuroradiol 2015;21:6–10 doi:10.1177/1591019915576289 pmid:25934768
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Burrows AM,
    2. Cloft H,
    3. Kallmes DF, et al
    . Periprocedural and mid-term technical and clinical events after flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:646–51 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011184 pmid:25082803
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Cruz JP,
    2. Chow M,
    3. O'Kelly C, et al
    . Delayed ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage following flow diversion for the treatment of anterior circulation aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:603–08 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3065 pmid:22403783
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Crobeddu E,
    2. Lanzino G,
    3. Kallmes DF, et al
    . Marked decrease in coil and stent utilization following introduction of flow diversion technology. J Neurointerv Surg 2013;5:351–53 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2012-010320 pmid:22544822
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. de Barros Faria M,
    2. Castro RN,
    3. Lundquist J, et al
    . The role of the Pipeline embolization device for the treatment of dissecting intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:2192–95 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2671 pmid:21885721
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Kulcsár Z,
    2. Ernemann U,
    3. Wetzel SG, et al
    . High-profile flow diverter (Silk) implantation in the basilar artery: efficacy in the treatment of aneurysms and the role of the perforators. Stroke 2010;41:1690–96 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.580308 pmid:20616327
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Pistocchi S,
    2. Blanc R,
    3. Bartolini B, et al
    . Flow diverters at and beyond the level of the circle of Willis for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Stroke 2012;43:1032–38 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.636019 pmid:22282890
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Lanzino G,
    2. Crobeddu E,
    3. Cloft HJ, et al
    . Efficacy and safety of flow diversion for paraclinoid aneurysms: a matched-pair analysis compared with standard endovascular approaches. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:2158–61 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3207 pmid:22790243
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Shigematsu T,
    2. Fujinaka T,
    3. Yoshimine T, et al
    ; JR-NET Investigators. Endovascular therapy for asymptomatic unruptured intracranial aneurysms: JR-NET and JR-NET2 findings. Stroke 2013;44:2735–42 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000609 pmid:23899916
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Spelle L,
    3. Vitry F
    . Immediate anatomic results after the endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: analysis of the ATENA series. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:140–44 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1745 pmid:19729540
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Oishi H,
    2. Yamamoto M,
    3. Shimizu T, et al
    . Endovascular therapy of 500 small asymptomatic unruptured intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:958–64 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2858 pmid:22241382
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Gonzalez N,
    2. Murayama Y,
    3. Nien YL, et al
    . Treatment of unruptured aneurysms with GDCs: clinical experience with 247 aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:577–83 pmid:15090345
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. van Rooij WJ,
    2. Sluzewski M
    . Durability of treatment of intracranial aneurysms with Hydrocoils is not different from standard platinum coils. Stroke 2006;37:2874; author reply 2875 pmid:17053187
    FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Yue W
    . Endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Interv Neuroradiol 2011;17:420–24 doi:10.1177/159101991101700404 pmid:22192544
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Song JH,
    2. Chang IB,
    3. Ahn JH, et al
    . Angiographic results of wide-necked intracranial aneurysms treated with coil embolization: a single center experience. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2015;57:250–57 doi:10.3340/jkns.2015.57.4.250 pmid:25932291
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Guilbert F,
    3. Weill A, et al
    . Long-term angiographic recurrences after selective endovascular treatment of aneurysms with detachable coils. Stroke 2003;34:1398–403 doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000073841.88563.E9 pmid:12775880
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Becske T,
    2. Kallmes DF,
    3. Saatci I, et al
    . Pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms: results from a multicenter clinical trial. Radiology 2013;267:858–68 doi:10.1148/radiol.13120099 pmid:23418004
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Lylyk P,
    2. Miranda C,
    3. Ceratto R, et al
    . Curative endovascular reconstruction of cerebral aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device: the Buenos Aires experience. Neurosurgery 2009;64:632–42; discussion 642–43; quiz N6 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000339109.98070.65 pmid:19349825
    CrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Chalouhi N,
    2. Zanaty M,
    3. Whiting A, et al
    . Safety and efficacy of the Pipeline embolization device in 100 small intracranial aneurysms. J Neurosurg 2015;122:1498–502 doi:10.3171/2014.12.JNS14411 pmid:25635478
    CrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Chalouhi N,
    2. Starke RM,
    3. Yang S, et al
    . Extending the indications of flow diversion to small, unruptured, saccular aneurysms of the anterior circulation. Stroke 2014;45:54–58 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.003038 pmid:24253543
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Zanaty M,
    2. Chalouhi N,
    3. Starke RM, et al
    . Flow diversion versus conventional treatment for carotid cavernous aneurysms. Stroke 2014;45:2656–61 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.006247 pmid:25052318
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Kallmes DF,
    2. Hanel R,
    3. Lopes D, et al
    . International retrospective study of the Pipeline embolization device: a multicenter aneurysm treatment study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:108–15 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4111 pmid:25355814
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Briganti F,
    2. Napoli M,
    3. Tortora F, et al
    . Italian multicenter experience with flow-diverter devices for intracranial unruptured aneurysm treatment with periprocedural complications–a retrospective data analysis. Neuroradiology 2012;54:1145–52 doi:10.1007/s00234-012-1047-3 pmid:22569955
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Brinjikji W,
    2. Murad MH,
    3. Lanzino G, et al
    . Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow diverters: a meta-analysis. Stroke 2013;44:442–47 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.678151 pmid:23321438
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Berge J,
    2. Biondi A,
    3. Machi P, et al
    . Flow-diverter Silk stent for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: 1-year follow-up in a multicenter study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1150–55 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2907 pmid:22300924
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Leonardi M,
    2. Cirillo L,
    3. Toni F, et al
    . Treatment of intracranial aneurysms using flow-diverting Silk stents (BALT): a single centre experience. Interv Neuroradiol 2011;17:306–15 pmid:22005692
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Velioglu M,
    2. Kizilkilic O,
    3. Selcuk H, et al
    . Early and midterm results of complex cerebral aneurysms treated with Silk stent. Neuroradiology 2012;54:1355–65 doi:10.1007/s00234-012-1051-7 pmid:22695740
    CrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Arias EJ,
    2. Patel B,
    3. Cross DT 3rd., et al
    . Timing and nature of in-house postoperative events following uncomplicated elective endovascular aneurysm treatment. J Neurosurg 2014;121:1063–70 doi:10.3171/2014.7.JNS132676 pmid:25170666
    CrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Eisen SH,
    2. Hindman BJ,
    3. Bayman EO, et al
    . Elective endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a management case series of patient outcomes after institutional change to admit patients principally to postanesthesia care unit rather than to intensive care. Anesth Analg 2015;121:188–97 doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000000699 pmid:25806401
    CrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Burrows AM,
    2. Rabinstein AA,
    3. Cloft HJ, et al
    . Are routine intensive care admissions needed after endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:2199–201 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3566 pmid:23744695
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Molyneux A,
    2. Kerr R,
    3. Stratton I, et al
    ; International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) Collaborative Group. International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002;360:1267–74 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11314-6 pmid:12414200
    CrossRefPubMed
  • Received August 25, 2015.
  • Accepted after revision November 18, 2015.
  • © 2016 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 37 (6)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 37, Issue 6
1 Jun 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Current Trends and Results of Endovascular Treatment of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms at a Single Institution in the Flow-Diverter Era
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
O. Petr, W. Brinjikji, H. Cloft, D.F. Kallmes, G. Lanzino
Current Trends and Results of Endovascular Treatment of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms at a Single Institution in the Flow-Diverter Era
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jun 2016, 37 (6) 1106-1113; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4699

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Current Trends and Results of Endovascular Treatment of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms at a Single Institution in the Flow-Diverter Era
O. Petr, W. Brinjikji, H. Cloft, D.F. Kallmes, G. Lanzino
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jun 2016, 37 (6) 1106-1113; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4699
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms using the Derivo Embolization Device: a multicenter experience
  • The Safety and Efficacy of Flow Diversion versus Conventional Endovascular Treatment for Intracranial Aneurysms: A Meta-analysis of Real-world Cohort Studies from the Past 10 Years
  • Cellular responses to flow diverters in a tissue-engineered aneurysm model
  • Long-Term Rupture Risk in Patients with Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms Treated with Endovascular Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
  • The FRED for Cerebral Aneurysms of the Posterior Circulation: A Subgroup Analysis of the EuFRED Registry
  • Large Neck and Strong Ostium Inflow as the Potential Causes for Delayed Occlusion of Unruptured Sidewall Intracranial Aneurysms Treated by Flow Diverter
  • High frequency optical coherence tomography assessment of homogenous neck coverage by intrasaccular devices predicts successful aneurysm occlusion
  • Contemporary endovascular and open aneurysm treatment in the era of flow diversion
  • Is intensive care monitoring necessary after coil embolization of unruptured intracranial aneurysms?
  • Patients, not pictures: why complete occlusion may be a complete disaster
  • Flow Diversion in Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Meta-Analysis
  • Crossref (55)
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • Flow Diversion for Intracranial Aneurysm Treatment: Trials Involving Flow Diverters and Long-Term Outcomes
    Bree Chancellor, Eytan Raz, Maksim Shapiro, Omar Tanweer, Erez Nossek, Howard A Riina, Peter Kim Nelson
    Neurosurgery 2020 86 Supplement_1
  • Flow diversion with the pipeline embolization device for patients with intracranial aneurysms and antiplatelet therapy: A systematic literature review
    Pavlos Texakalidis, Kimon Bekelis, Elias Atallah, Stavropoula Tjoumakaris, Robert H. Rosenwasser, Pascal Jabbour
    Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 2017 161
  • Flow Diversion in Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Meta-Analysis
    T.P. Madaelil, C.J. Moran, D.T. Cross, A.P. Kansagra
    American Journal of Neuroradiology 2017 38 3
  • Flow Diversion of Posterior Circulation Cerebral Aneurysms: A Single-Institution Series of 59 Cases
    Matthew T Bender, Geoffrey P Colby, Bowen Jiang, Li-Mei Lin, Jessica K Campos, Risheng Xu, Erick M Westbroek, Chau D Vo, David A Zarrin, Justin M Caplan, Judy Huang, Rafael J Tamargo, Alexander L Coon
    Neurosurgery 2019 84 1
  • Endovascular Metal Devices for the Treatment of Cerebrovascular Diseases
    Yueqi Zhu, Hongbo Zhang, Yiran Zhang, Huayin Wu, Liming Wei, Gen Zhou, Yuezhou Zhang, Lianfu Deng, Yingsheng Cheng, Minghua Li, Hélder A. Santos, Wenguo Cui
    Advanced Materials 2019 31 8
  • National trends in cerebral bypass surgery in the United States, 2002–2014
    Ethan A. Winkler, John K. Yue, Hansen Deng, Kunal P. Raygor, Ryan R. L. Phelps, Caleb Rutledge, Alex Y. Lu, Roberto Rodriguez Rubio, Jan-Karl Burkhardt, Adib A. Abla
    Neurosurgical Focus 2019 46 2
  • FRED Italian Registry: a multicenter experience with the flow re-direction endoluminal device for intracranial aneurysms
    Mariangela Piano, Luca Valvassori, Emilio Lozupone, Guglielmo Pero, Luca Quilici, Edoardo Boccardi, _ _
    Journal of Neurosurgery 2020 133 1
  • Blood Flow Diversion as a Primary Treatment Method for Ruptured Brain Aneurysms—Concerns, Controversy, and Future Directions
    Brian P. Walcott, Matthew J. Koch, Christopher J. Stapleton, Aman B. Patel
    Neurocritical Care 2017 26 3
  • High frequency optical coherence tomography assessment of homogenous neck coverage by intrasaccular devices predicts successful aneurysm occlusion
    Robert M King, Miklos Marosfoi, Jildaz Caroff, Giovanni J Ughi, Dale M Groth, Matthew J Gounis, Ajit S Puri
    Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2019 11 11
  • Single-center experience with six-month follow-up of FRED Jr® flow diverters for intracranial aneurysms in small arteries
    Riitta Rautio, Melissa Rahi, Ari Katila, Jaakko Rinne
    Acta Radiologica 2019 60 7

More in this TOC Section

  • Flow diversion for distal circulation aneurysms
  • Neuroform Atlas Stent for Intracranial Aneurysms
  • Transophthalmic Artery Embolization of Meningiomas
Show more Neurointervention

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner
  • Book Reviews

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire