Two- to five-year follow-up of 78 patients after treatment with the Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device.
Adult
Aged
Carotid Artery Diseases
/ diagnostic imaging
Cerebral Angiography
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Intracranial Aneurysm
/ diagnostic imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Reoperation
Stents
/ adverse effects
Treatment Outcome
Vertebrobasilar Insufficiency
/ diagnostic imaging
Young Adult
Cerebral aneurysm
Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device
flow diversion
Journal
Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences
ISSN: 2385-2011
Titre abrégé: Interv Neuroradiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9602695
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2020
Feb 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
9
10
2019
medline:
29
12
2020
entrez:
10
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Flow-diverter stents are well-established for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms. Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device differs from other flow-diverter stents by its dual-layer design and has proved equality to other devices in numerous short-term surveys. However, follow-up data covering substantially more than one year are still limited for this device. We present our long-term experience with Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device. Seventy-eight patients harboring distal internal carotid artery (91%) or vertebrobasilar (9%) cerebral aneurysms treated with Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device with or without adjunctive coiling met the inclusion criteria. All cases were evaluated for aneurysm occlusion (according to Modified Raymond Roy Classification, MRRC), for flow-diverter stents patency and configuration and for procedure- and device-related morbidity and mortality. Mean follow-up interval was 36.9 ± 9.5 months (<30 months: n = 18; 31-42 months: n = 31; >42 months: n = 24). Total and subtotal aneurysm occlusion after six months was assessed in 92.0% (MRRC Our long-term data covering two to five years after flow diversion confirm that Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device is a safe and effective device for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms with progressive high aneurysm occlusion rates; recurrence rates were very low. Overall device-related morbidity was low and was not observed later than six months after intervention.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
Flow-diverter stents are well-established for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms. Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device differs from other flow-diverter stents by its dual-layer design and has proved equality to other devices in numerous short-term surveys. However, follow-up data covering substantially more than one year are still limited for this device. We present our long-term experience with Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Seventy-eight patients harboring distal internal carotid artery (91%) or vertebrobasilar (9%) cerebral aneurysms treated with Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device with or without adjunctive coiling met the inclusion criteria. All cases were evaluated for aneurysm occlusion (according to Modified Raymond Roy Classification, MRRC), for flow-diverter stents patency and configuration and for procedure- and device-related morbidity and mortality.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Mean follow-up interval was 36.9 ± 9.5 months (<30 months: n = 18; 31-42 months: n = 31; >42 months: n = 24). Total and subtotal aneurysm occlusion after six months was assessed in 92.0% (MRRC
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our long-term data covering two to five years after flow diversion confirm that Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device is a safe and effective device for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms with progressive high aneurysm occlusion rates; recurrence rates were very low. Overall device-related morbidity was low and was not observed later than six months after intervention.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31594435
doi: 10.1177/1591019919878551
pmc: PMC6998004
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
38-44Références
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Sep;36(9):1728-34
pubmed: 25999412
Neurosurgery. 2017 Jan 01;80(1):40-48
pubmed: 28362885
J Neurosurg. 2016 Jul;125(1):137-44
pubmed: 26684772
Radiology. 2013 Jun;267(3):858-68
pubmed: 23418004
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Jun;37(6):1127-31
pubmed: 26767709
Neuroradiol J. 2015 Aug;28(4):365-75
pubmed: 26314872
Eur Radiol. 2011 Aug;21(8):1797-801
pubmed: 21720943
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Sep;35(9):1772-8
pubmed: 24722301
JAMA Neurol. 2016 Aug 1;73(8):1002-8
pubmed: 27294446
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007 Nov-Dec;28(10):1902-8
pubmed: 17893214
Neuroradiology. 2017 Nov;59(11):1171-1178
pubmed: 28875355
Neurosurg Focus. 2017 Jun;42(6):E3
pubmed: 28565988
J Neurosurg. 2019 May 10;:1-8
pubmed: 31075778
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Oct;35(10):1954-8
pubmed: 24874528
Neurosurgery. 2009 Apr;64(4):632-42; discussion 642-3; quiz N6
pubmed: 19349825
World Neurosurg. 2016 Sep;93:60-6
pubmed: 27268315
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Mar;38(3):596-602
pubmed: 28104636
Interv Neurol. 2016 Jun;5(1-2):89-99
pubmed: 27610126
J Neurosurg. 2015 Apr;122(4):904-11
pubmed: 25658781
Turk Neurosurg. 2017 Jul 11;:
pubmed: 28944944
J Clin Neurosci. 2014 Jul;21(7):1116-22
pubmed: 24524952
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Jun;36(6):1155-61
pubmed: 25721079
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 May;39(5):841-847
pubmed: 29545252
Neurosurgery. 2015 Feb;76(2):142-9
pubmed: 25255261
J Biomech. 2016 Aug 16;49(12):2420-7
pubmed: 26965472