Clinical outcomes of pipeline embolization devices with shield technology for treating intracranial aneurysms
Introduction As a common endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms, the pipeline embolization device (PED) is considered a standard treatment option, especially for large, giant, wide-necked, or dissecting aneurysms. A layer of phosphorylcholine biocompatible polymer added to the surface of...
Saved in:
Published in | Frontiers in neurology Vol. 13; p. 971664 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Frontiers Media S.A
14.11.2022
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Introduction
As a common endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms, the pipeline embolization device (PED) is considered a standard treatment option, especially for large, giant, wide-necked, or dissecting aneurysms. A layer of phosphorylcholine biocompatible polymer added to the surface of the PED can substantially improve this technology. This PED with shield technology (pipeline shield) is relatively novel; its early technical success and safety have been reported. We conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of evaluating the efficacy and safety of the pipeline shield.
Methods
We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases, following the preferred reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
Results
We selected five prospective and two retrospective studies for review. A total of 572 aneurysms were included; of these, 506 (88.5%) were unruptured. The antiplatelet regimens were heterogeneous. The rate of perioperative and postoperative complications was 11.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.5–18.9%]. The adequate occlusion rate at 6 months was 73.9% (95% CI: 69.1–78.7%). The adequate occlusion rate of more than 12 months was 80.9% (95% CI: 75.1–86.1%). The mortality rate was 0.7% (95% CI: 0.2–1.5%). Subgroup analyses showed that aneurysm rupture status had no effect on aneurysm occlusion rate, patient morbidity, or mortality.
Conclusion
This review demonstrates the safety and efficacy of the pipeline shield for treating intracranial aneurysms. However, direct comparisons of the pipeline shield with other flow diverters are needed to better understand the relative safety and effectiveness of different devices. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | content type line 23 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 Reviewed by: Yueqi Zhu, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China; Hua Lu, Nanjing Medical University, China; Shiwei Du, South China Hospital of Shenzhen University, China These authors have contributed equally to this work This article was submitted to Endovascular and Interventional Neurology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Neurology Edited by: Jianmin Liu, Second Military Medical University, China |
ISSN: | 1664-2295 1664-2295 |
DOI: | 10.3389/fneur.2022.971664 |