TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of PED/PED Flex and PED Shield in the treatment of unruptured intracerebral aneurysms
AU - El Naamani, Kareem El
AU - Mastorakos, Panagiotis
AU - Yudkoff, Clifford J.
AU - Abbas, Rawad
AU - Tjoumakaris, Stavropoula I.
AU - Gooch, M. Reid
AU - Herial, Nabeel A.
AU - Rosenwasser, Robert H.
AU - Zarzour, Hekmat
AU - Schmidt, Richard F.
AU - Jabbour, Pascal M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
©AANS 2024, except where prohibited by US copyright law.
PY - 2024/2
Y1 - 2024/2
N2 - OBJECTIVE The object of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of the Pipeline embolization device (PED)/Pipeline Flex embolization device (PED Flex) with that of the Pipeline Flex embolization device with Shield Technology (PED Shield). After introducing the first-generation PED and the second-generation PED Flex with its updated delivery system, the PED Shield was launched with a synthetic layer of phosphorylcholine surface modification to reduce thrombogenicity. METHODS This is a retrospective review of unruptured aneurysms treated with PED/PED Flex versus PED Shield between 2017 and 2022 at the authors’ institution. Patients with ruptured aneurysms, adjunctive treatment, failed flow diverter deployment, and prior treatment of the target aneurysm were excluded. Baseline characteristics were collected for all patients, including age, sex, past medical history (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus), smoking status, aneurysm location, and aneurysm dimensions (neck, width, height) and morphology (saccular, nonsaccular). The primary outcome was procedural and periprocedural complication rates. RESULTS The study cohort comprised 200 patients with 200 aneurysms, including 150 aneurysms treated with the PED/PED Flex and 50 treated with the PED Shield. With respect to intraprocedural and periprocedural complications, length of stay, length of follow-up, and functional outcome at discharge, there was no significant difference between the two cohorts. At the midterm follow-up, the rate of in-stent stenosis (PED/PED Flex: 14.2% vs PED Shield: 14.6%, p = 0.927), aneurysm occlusion (complete occlusion: 79.5% vs 80.5%, respectively; neck remnant: 4.7% vs 12.2%; dome remnant: 15.7% vs 7.3%; p = 0.119), and the need for retreatment (5.3% vs 0%, p = 0.097) were comparable between the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that, as compared to first- and second-generation PED and PED Flex, the third-generation PED Shield offers similar rates of complications, aneurysm occlusion, and in-stent stenosis at the midterm follow-up.
AB - OBJECTIVE The object of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of the Pipeline embolization device (PED)/Pipeline Flex embolization device (PED Flex) with that of the Pipeline Flex embolization device with Shield Technology (PED Shield). After introducing the first-generation PED and the second-generation PED Flex with its updated delivery system, the PED Shield was launched with a synthetic layer of phosphorylcholine surface modification to reduce thrombogenicity. METHODS This is a retrospective review of unruptured aneurysms treated with PED/PED Flex versus PED Shield between 2017 and 2022 at the authors’ institution. Patients with ruptured aneurysms, adjunctive treatment, failed flow diverter deployment, and prior treatment of the target aneurysm were excluded. Baseline characteristics were collected for all patients, including age, sex, past medical history (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus), smoking status, aneurysm location, and aneurysm dimensions (neck, width, height) and morphology (saccular, nonsaccular). The primary outcome was procedural and periprocedural complication rates. RESULTS The study cohort comprised 200 patients with 200 aneurysms, including 150 aneurysms treated with the PED/PED Flex and 50 treated with the PED Shield. With respect to intraprocedural and periprocedural complications, length of stay, length of follow-up, and functional outcome at discharge, there was no significant difference between the two cohorts. At the midterm follow-up, the rate of in-stent stenosis (PED/PED Flex: 14.2% vs PED Shield: 14.6%, p = 0.927), aneurysm occlusion (complete occlusion: 79.5% vs 80.5%, respectively; neck remnant: 4.7% vs 12.2%; dome remnant: 15.7% vs 7.3%; p = 0.119), and the need for retreatment (5.3% vs 0%, p = 0.097) were comparable between the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that, as compared to first- and second-generation PED and PED Flex, the third-generation PED Shield offers similar rates of complications, aneurysm occlusion, and in-stent stenosis at the midterm follow-up.
KW - Flow diversion
KW - aneurysms
KW - comparison
KW - complications
KW - endovascular neurosurgery
KW - surface modification
KW - vascular disorders
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85184283686&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85184283686&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3171/2023.7.JNS23981
DO - 10.3171/2023.7.JNS23981
M3 - Article
C2 - 37877979
AN - SCOPUS:85184283686
SN - 0022-3085
VL - 140
SP - 436
EP - 440
JO - Journal of neurosurgery
JF - Journal of neurosurgery
IS - 2
ER -