Comparison of Pipeline embolization device versus Tubridge embolization device in unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a multicenter, propensity score matched study.
Aneurysm
Flow Diverter
Vascular Malformation
Journal
Journal of neurointerventional surgery
ISSN: 1759-8486
Titre abrégé: J Neurointerv Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101517079
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 May 2024
06 May 2024
Historique:
received:
22
02
2024
accepted:
18
04
2024
medline:
9
5
2024
pubmed:
9
5
2024
entrez:
8
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Flow diverter devices (FDs) are increasingly used for treating unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs), but limited studies compared different FDs. To conduct a propensity score matched analysis comparing the Pipeline embolization device (PED) and Tubridge embolization device (TED) for UIAs. Patients with UIAs treated with either PED or TED between July 2016 and July 2022 were included. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, drinking, aneurysm size, morphology, neck, location, parent artery diameter, adjunctive coiling, and angiographic follow-up duration. Perioperative complications and clinical and angiographic outcomes were compared after matching. 735 patients treated by PED and 290 patients treated by TED were enrolled. Compared with the PED group, patients in the TED group had a greater number of women and patients with ischemia, a smaller proportion of vertebrobasilar and non-saccular aneurysms, a smaller size and neck, and fewer adjunctive coils and overlapping stents, but a larger parent artery diameter and lumen disparities. After adjusting for these differences, 275 pairs were matched. No differences were found in perioperative complications (4.4% vs 2.5%, P=0.350), in-stent stenosis (16.0% vs 15.6%, P>0.999), or favorable prognosis (98.9% vs 98.5%, P>0.999). However, PED showed a trend towards better complete occlusion over a median 8-month angiographic follow-up (81.8% vs 75.3%, P=0.077). Compared with PED, TED provides a comparable rate of perioperative and short-term outcomes. Nevertheless, a better occlusion status in the PED group needs to be further verified over a longer follow-up period.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Flow diverter devices (FDs) are increasingly used for treating unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs), but limited studies compared different FDs.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a propensity score matched analysis comparing the Pipeline embolization device (PED) and Tubridge embolization device (TED) for UIAs.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients with UIAs treated with either PED or TED between July 2016 and July 2022 were included. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, drinking, aneurysm size, morphology, neck, location, parent artery diameter, adjunctive coiling, and angiographic follow-up duration. Perioperative complications and clinical and angiographic outcomes were compared after matching.
RESULTS
RESULTS
735 patients treated by PED and 290 patients treated by TED were enrolled. Compared with the PED group, patients in the TED group had a greater number of women and patients with ischemia, a smaller proportion of vertebrobasilar and non-saccular aneurysms, a smaller size and neck, and fewer adjunctive coils and overlapping stents, but a larger parent artery diameter and lumen disparities. After adjusting for these differences, 275 pairs were matched. No differences were found in perioperative complications (4.4% vs 2.5%, P=0.350), in-stent stenosis (16.0% vs 15.6%, P>0.999), or favorable prognosis (98.9% vs 98.5%, P>0.999). However, PED showed a trend towards better complete occlusion over a median 8-month angiographic follow-up (81.8% vs 75.3%, P=0.077).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with PED, TED provides a comparable rate of perioperative and short-term outcomes. Nevertheless, a better occlusion status in the PED group needs to be further verified over a longer follow-up period.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38719444
pii: jnis-2024-021623
doi: 10.1136/jnis-2024-021623
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.