Aneurysm Remnants after Flow Diversion: Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Fiorella D,
   3. Woo HH,
   4. Albuquerque FC, et al

   . Definitive reconstruction of circumferential, fusiform intracranial aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device. Neurosurgery 2008;62:1115–20; discussion 1120–21 doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000325873.44881.6e pmid:18580809

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Becske T,
   3. Kallmes DF,
   4. 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

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Nelson PK,
   3. Lylyk P,
   4. Szikora I, et al

   . The Pipeline embolization device for the intracranial treatment of aneurysms trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiology 2011;32:34–40 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2421 pmid:21148256

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   2. Lylyk P,
   3. Miranda C,
   4. 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

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Kallmes DF,
   3. Brinjikji W,
   4. Cekirge S, et al

   . Safety and efficacy of the Pipeline Embolization Device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a pooled analysis of 3 large studies. J Neurosurg 2017;127:775–80 doi:10.3171/2016.8.JNS16467 pmid:27791519

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Becske T,
   3. Brinjikji W,
   4. Potts MB, et al

   . Long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes following Pipeline Embolization Device treatment of complex internal carotid artery aneurysms: five-year results of the Pipeline for Uncoilable or Failed Aneurysms trial. Neurosurgery 2017;80:40–48 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyw014 pmid:28362885

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Lecler A,
   3. Raymond J,
   4. Rodriguez-Régent C, et al

   . Intracranial aneurysms: recurrences more than 10 years after endovascular treatment—a prospective cohort study, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Radiology 2015;277:173–80 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142496 pmid:26057784

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Mascitelli JR,
   3. Oermann EK,
   4. De Leacy RA, et al

   . Angiographic outcome of intracranial aneurysms with neck remnant following coil embolization. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:484–89 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011226 pmid:24792578

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   2. Munich SA,
   3. Cress MC,
   4. Rangel-Castilla L, et al

   . Neck remnants and the risk of aneurysm rupture after endovascular treatment with coiling or stent-assisted coiling: much ado about nothing? Neurosurgery 2019;84:421–27 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyy056 pmid:29528449

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. O'Kelly C,
    3. Krings T,
    4. Fiorella D, et al

    . A novel grading scale for the angiographic assessment of intracranial aneurysms treated using flow diverting stents. Interv Neuroradiol 2010;16:133–37 doi:10.1177/159101991001600204 pmid:20642887

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Adeeb N,
    3. Moore J,
    4. Wirtz M, et al

    . Predictors of incomplete occlusion following Pipeline embolization of intracranial aneurysms: is it less effective in older patients? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:2295–300 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5375 pmid:28912285

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    2. Trivelato FP,
    3. Salles Rezende MT,
    4. Ulhôa AC, et al

    . Occlusion rates of intracranial aneurysms treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device: the role of branches arising from the sac. J Neurosurg 18 Apr 1:1–7. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.3171/2017.10.JNS172175 pmid:29624153

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Bender MT,
    3. Colby GP,
    4. Lin LM, et al

    . Predictors of cerebral aneurysm persistence and occlusion after flow diversion: a single-institution series of 445 cases with angiographic follow-up. J Neurosurg 2018 Mar 1:1–9. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.3171/2017.11.JNS171738 pmid:29600915

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Lin N,
    3. Brouillard AM,
    4. Krishna C, et al

    . Use of coils in conjunction with the Pipeline embolization device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurgery 2015;76:142–49 doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000579 pmid:25255261

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Nossek E,
    3. Chalif DJ,
    4. Chakraborty S, et al

    . Concurrent use of the Pipeline Embolization Device and coils for intracranial aneurysms: technique, safety, and efficacy. J Neurosurg 2015;122:904–11 doi:10.3171/2014.12.JNS141259 pmid:25658781

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Siddiqui AH,
    3. Kan P,
    4. Abla AA, et al

    . Complications after treatment with Pipeline embolization for giant distal intracranial aneurysms with or without coil embolization. Neurosurgery 2012;71:E509–13 doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e318258e1f8 pmid:22710418

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    2. Park M,
    3. Kilburg C,
    4. Taussky P, et al

    . Pipeline embolization device with or without adjunctive coil embolization: analysis of complications from the IntrePED Registry. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1127–31 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4678 pmid:26767709

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    2. Wang K,
    3. Huang Q,
    4. Hong B, et al

    . Correlation of aneurysm occlusion with actual metal coverage at neck after implantation of flow-diverting stent in rabbit models. Neuroradiology 2012;54:607–13 doi:10.1007/s00234-011-0922-7 pmid:21874284

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    2. Shapiro M,
    3. Raz E,
    4. Becske T, et al

    . Building multidevice Pipeline constructs of favorable metal coverage: a practical guide. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:1556–61 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3902 pmid:24676003

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    2. Kim M1,
    3. Levy EI,
    4. Meng H, et al

    . Quantification of hemodynamic changes induced by virtual placement of multiple stents across a wide-necked basilar trunk aneurysm. Neurosurgery 2007;61:1305–12; discussion 1312–13 doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000306110.55174.30 pmid:18162911

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    2. Tan LA,
    3. Keigher KM,
    4. Munich SA, et al

    . Thromboembolic complications with Pipeline Embolization Device placement: impact of procedure time, number of stents and pre-procedure P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) value. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:217–21 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011111 pmid:24553344

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    2. Chalouhi N,
    3. Tjoumakaris S,
    4. Phillips J, et al

    . A single Pipeline embolization device is sufficient for treatment of intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:1562–66 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3957 pmid:24788125

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    2. Brinjikji W,
    3. Lanzino G,
    4. Cloft H, et al

    . Risk factors for ischemic complications following Pipeline Embolization Device treatment of intracranial aneurysms: results from the IntrePED study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1673–78 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4807 pmid:27102308

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    2. Johnston SC,
    3. Dowd CF,
    4. Higashida RT, et al

    ; CARAT Investigators. Predictors of rehemorrhage after treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: the Cerebral Aneurysm Rerupture After Treatment (CARAT) study. Stroke 2008;39:120–25 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.495747 pmid:18048860

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    2. Kan P,
    3. Srinivasan VM,
    4. Mbabuike N, et al

    . Aneurysms with persistent patency after treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device. J Neurosurg 2017;126:1894–98 doi:10.3171/2016.6.JNS16402 pmid:27636182

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Boddu S,
    3. Tong F,
    4. Dehkharghani S, et al

    . Contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA for follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:2112–18 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4008 pmid:24994828

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    2. van der Marel K,
    3. Gounis MJ,
    4. Weaver JP, et al

    . Grading of Regional Apposition after Flow-Diverter Treatment (GRAFT): a comparative evaluation of VasoCT and intravascular OCT. J Neurointerv Surg 2016;8:847–52 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-011843 pmid:26220411

    Abstract/FREE Full Text