Cargando…
Pipeline Embolization Device With Adjunctive Coils for the Treatment of Unruptured Large or Giant Vertebrobasilar Aneurysms: A Single-Center Experience
Objective: To evaluate effectiveness and safety of Pipeline embolization device (PED) for large or giant verterbrobasilar aneurysms (LGVBAs), and to compare the therapeutic effects of PED with and without adjunctive coils. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 21 cases of unruptured LGVBAs who were t...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7661848/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33192964 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.522583 |
_version_ | 1783609280627212288 |
---|---|
author | Zhou, Yangyang Wu, Xinzhi Tian, Zhongbin Yang, Xinjian Mu, Shiqing |
author_facet | Zhou, Yangyang Wu, Xinzhi Tian, Zhongbin Yang, Xinjian Mu, Shiqing |
author_sort | Zhou, Yangyang |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objective: To evaluate effectiveness and safety of Pipeline embolization device (PED) for large or giant verterbrobasilar aneurysms (LGVBAs), and to compare the therapeutic effects of PED with and without adjunctive coils. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 21 cases of unruptured LGVBAs who were treated in our hospital with PED. These cases were divided into “PED group” and “PED with adjunctive coils group.” We compared the aneurysm characteristics and treatment outcomes between the two groups. Results: The overall neurological complication rate was 28.6% (6/21) and the mortality rate was 4.8% (1/21). There were 12 patients in the PED group and nine in the PED with adjunctive coils group. There were no significant differences in age, smoking, hypertension, aneurysm size, aneurysm location, or operation time between the two groups. The complete aneurysm embolization rate and favorable outcome rate (modified Rankin Scale = 0,1) of the PED with adjunctive coils group was 78% (7/9) and 100% (9/9), respectively, which were both better compared with the PED group with 63.6% (7/11) and 83% (10/12), respectively. However, these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: The effectiveness and safety of PED for LGVBAs is acceptable. Treatment results did not differ between the PED and PED with adjunctive coils groups; therefore, whether coils should be used may depend the operator. Our results suggest that correct use of the coils does not increase complications. We suggest that PED with adjunctive coils should be used for some selected LGVBAs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7661848 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76618482020-11-13 Pipeline Embolization Device With Adjunctive Coils for the Treatment of Unruptured Large or Giant Vertebrobasilar Aneurysms: A Single-Center Experience Zhou, Yangyang Wu, Xinzhi Tian, Zhongbin Yang, Xinjian Mu, Shiqing Front Neurol Neurology Objective: To evaluate effectiveness and safety of Pipeline embolization device (PED) for large or giant verterbrobasilar aneurysms (LGVBAs), and to compare the therapeutic effects of PED with and without adjunctive coils. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 21 cases of unruptured LGVBAs who were treated in our hospital with PED. These cases were divided into “PED group” and “PED with adjunctive coils group.” We compared the aneurysm characteristics and treatment outcomes between the two groups. Results: The overall neurological complication rate was 28.6% (6/21) and the mortality rate was 4.8% (1/21). There were 12 patients in the PED group and nine in the PED with adjunctive coils group. There were no significant differences in age, smoking, hypertension, aneurysm size, aneurysm location, or operation time between the two groups. The complete aneurysm embolization rate and favorable outcome rate (modified Rankin Scale = 0,1) of the PED with adjunctive coils group was 78% (7/9) and 100% (9/9), respectively, which were both better compared with the PED group with 63.6% (7/11) and 83% (10/12), respectively. However, these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: The effectiveness and safety of PED for LGVBAs is acceptable. Treatment results did not differ between the PED and PED with adjunctive coils groups; therefore, whether coils should be used may depend the operator. Our results suggest that correct use of the coils does not increase complications. We suggest that PED with adjunctive coils should be used for some selected LGVBAs. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7661848/ /pubmed/33192964 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.522583 Text en Copyright © 2020 Zhou, Wu, Tian, Yang and Mu. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neurology Zhou, Yangyang Wu, Xinzhi Tian, Zhongbin Yang, Xinjian Mu, Shiqing Pipeline Embolization Device With Adjunctive Coils for the Treatment of Unruptured Large or Giant Vertebrobasilar Aneurysms: A Single-Center Experience |
title | Pipeline Embolization Device With Adjunctive Coils for the Treatment of Unruptured Large or Giant Vertebrobasilar Aneurysms: A Single-Center Experience |
title_full | Pipeline Embolization Device With Adjunctive Coils for the Treatment of Unruptured Large or Giant Vertebrobasilar Aneurysms: A Single-Center Experience |
title_fullStr | Pipeline Embolization Device With Adjunctive Coils for the Treatment of Unruptured Large or Giant Vertebrobasilar Aneurysms: A Single-Center Experience |
title_full_unstemmed | Pipeline Embolization Device With Adjunctive Coils for the Treatment of Unruptured Large or Giant Vertebrobasilar Aneurysms: A Single-Center Experience |
title_short | Pipeline Embolization Device With Adjunctive Coils for the Treatment of Unruptured Large or Giant Vertebrobasilar Aneurysms: A Single-Center Experience |
title_sort | pipeline embolization device with adjunctive coils for the treatment of unruptured large or giant vertebrobasilar aneurysms: a single-center experience |
topic | Neurology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7661848/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33192964 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.522583 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhouyangyang pipelineembolizationdevicewithadjunctivecoilsforthetreatmentofunrupturedlargeorgiantvertebrobasilaraneurysmsasinglecenterexperience AT wuxinzhi pipelineembolizationdevicewithadjunctivecoilsforthetreatmentofunrupturedlargeorgiantvertebrobasilaraneurysmsasinglecenterexperience AT tianzhongbin pipelineembolizationdevicewithadjunctivecoilsforthetreatmentofunrupturedlargeorgiantvertebrobasilaraneurysmsasinglecenterexperience AT yangxinjian pipelineembolizationdevicewithadjunctivecoilsforthetreatmentofunrupturedlargeorgiantvertebrobasilaraneurysmsasinglecenterexperience AT mushiqing pipelineembolizationdevicewithadjunctivecoilsforthetreatmentofunrupturedlargeorgiantvertebrobasilaraneurysmsasinglecenterexperience |