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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhou, Yangyang, Wu, Xinzhi, Tian, Zhongbin, Yang, Xinjian, Mu, Shiqing
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