Persistent flow inside the Woven EndoBridge at angiographic follow-up: A multicenter study.

Aneurysm Woven Endobridge flow-disruption

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:
04 Jul 2023
Historique:
medline: 5 7 2023
pubmed: 5 7 2023
entrez: 5 7 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The occurrence of persistent intra-device filling (BOSS 1, using the Bicêtre Occlusion Scale Score (BOSS)) in aneurysms treated with a Woven Endobridge (WEB) device is infrequent based on angiographic follow-up. To date, three monocentric case series were published studying BOSS 1 cases. Through a multicenter retrospective study, we aimed to report the incidence, and risk factors of intra-WEB persistent filling. We reached out to European academic centers that treat patients using WEB devices and requested de-identified data of patients treated with a WEB device and underwent angiographic follow-up, at least 3 months after embolization, to assess the BOSS 1 occlusion score. We compared baseline characteristics, treatment modalities, and aneurysm data of the included BOSS 1 patients with those of a control group consisting of non-BOSS 1 patients ( Among the pooled sample of 591 aneurysms treated with WEB, the rate of persistent flow (BOSS 1) at angiographic follow-up was 5.2% ( Persistent blood flow within the WEB device during angiographic follow-up (BOSS 1) is an uncommon occurrence. Our findings indicate that post-procedural dual antiplatelet therapy and undersizing of the WEB device are independently associated with the presence of BOSS 1 at follow-up.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The occurrence of persistent intra-device filling (BOSS 1, using the Bicêtre Occlusion Scale Score (BOSS)) in aneurysms treated with a Woven Endobridge (WEB) device is infrequent based on angiographic follow-up. To date, three monocentric case series were published studying BOSS 1 cases. Through a multicenter retrospective study, we aimed to report the incidence, and risk factors of intra-WEB persistent filling.
METHODS METHODS
We reached out to European academic centers that treat patients using WEB devices and requested de-identified data of patients treated with a WEB device and underwent angiographic follow-up, at least 3 months after embolization, to assess the BOSS 1 occlusion score. We compared baseline characteristics, treatment modalities, and aneurysm data of the included BOSS 1 patients with those of a control group consisting of non-BOSS 1 patients (
RESULTS RESULTS
Among the pooled sample of 591 aneurysms treated with WEB, the rate of persistent flow (BOSS 1) at angiographic follow-up was 5.2% (
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Persistent blood flow within the WEB device during angiographic follow-up (BOSS 1) is an uncommon occurrence. Our findings indicate that post-procedural dual antiplatelet therapy and undersizing of the WEB device are independently associated with the presence of BOSS 1 at follow-up.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37403459
doi: 10.1177/15910199231185805
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

15910199231185805

Auteurs

Kevin Janot (K)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Tours, Tours, France.

Guillaume Charbonnier (G)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France.

Gaultier Marnat (G)

Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.

Peter Sporns (P)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Medical Center of Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Julien Burel (J)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Rouen, Rouen, France.

Chrysanthi Papagiannaki (C)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Rouen, Rouen, France.

Geraud Forestier (G)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Limoges, Limoges, France.

Jean-Francois Hak (JF)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Marseille, Marseille, France.

Thibault Agripnidis (T)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Marseille, Marseille, France.

Frederico Bolognini (F)

Neuroradiology Department, General Hospital of Colmar, Colmar, France.

Pablo Ariel Lebedinsky (PA)

Neuroradiology Department, General Hospital of Colmar, Colmar, France.

Heloise Ifergan (H)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Tours, Tours, France.

Richard Bibi (R)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Tours, Tours, France.

Denis Herbreteau (D)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Tours, Tours, France.

Nourou Dine Adeniran Bankole (ND)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Tours, Tours, France.

Alessandra Biondi (A)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France.

Xavier Barreau (X)

Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.

Alexis Guédon (A)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, Lariboisière Hospital, Paris, France.

Eimad Shotar (E)

Neuroradiology Department, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France.

Frederic Clarençon (F)

Neuroradiology Department, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France.

Basile Kerleroux (B)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, Saint Anne Hospital, Paris, France.

Grégoire Boulouis (G)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Tours, Tours, France.

Fouzi Bala (F)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Tours, Tours, France.

Aymeric Rouchaud (A)

Interventional Neuroradiology Department, University Hospital of Limoges, Limoges, France.

Classifications MeSH