Cargando…

Hemodynamic analysis for endovascular treatment in small unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a matched comparison study of flow diverter versus LVIS

BACKGROUND: We compared the treatment of small unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) with flow diverter and LVIS-assisted coiling to determine the effects of hemodynamic changes caused by different stent and coil packing in endovascular treatment. METHODS: Fifty-one UIAs in 51 patients treated wi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Jian, Li, Wenqiang, Zhang, Yisen, Wang, Kun, Yang, Xinjian, Zhang, Ying
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8638548/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34852851
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41016-021-00266-w
_version_ 1784608962361950208
author Liu, Jian
Li, Wenqiang
Zhang, Yisen
Wang, Kun
Yang, Xinjian
Zhang, Ying
author_facet Liu, Jian
Li, Wenqiang
Zhang, Yisen
Wang, Kun
Yang, Xinjian
Zhang, Ying
author_sort Liu, Jian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We compared the treatment of small unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) with flow diverter and LVIS-assisted coiling to determine the effects of hemodynamic changes caused by different stent and coil packing in endovascular treatment. METHODS: Fifty-one UIAs in 51 patients treated with pipeline embolization device (PED) were included in this study and defined as the PED group. We matched controls 1:1 and enrolled 51 UIAs who were treated with LVIS stent, which were defined as the LVIS group. Computational fluid dynamics were performed to assess hemodynamic alterations between PED and LVIS. Clinical analysis was also performed between these two groups after the match. RESULTS: There was no difference in procedural complications between the two groups (P = 0.558). At the first angiographic follow-up, the complete occlusion rate was significantly higher in the LVIS group compared with that in the PED group (98.0% vs. 82.4%, P = 0.027). However, during the further angiographic follow-up, the complete occlusion rate in the PED group achieved 100%, which was higher than that in the LVIS group (98.0%). Compared with the LVIS group after treatment, cases in the PED group showed a higher value of velocity in the aneurysm (0.03 ± 0.09 vs. 0.01 ± 0.01, P = 0.037) and WSS on the aneurysm (2.32 ± 5.40 vs. 0.33 ± 0.47, P = 0.011). Consequently, the reduction ratios of these two parameters also showed statistical differences. These parameters in the LVIS group showed much higher reduction ratios. However, the reduction ratio of the velocity on the neck plane was comparable between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both LVIS and PED were safe and effective for the treatment of small UIAs. However, LVIS-assisted coiling produced greater hemodynamic alterations in the aneurysm sac compared with PED. The hemodynamics in the aneurysm neck may be a key factor for aneurysm outcome.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8638548
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86385482021-12-03 Hemodynamic analysis for endovascular treatment in small unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a matched comparison study of flow diverter versus LVIS Liu, Jian Li, Wenqiang Zhang, Yisen Wang, Kun Yang, Xinjian Zhang, Ying Chin Neurosurg J Research BACKGROUND: We compared the treatment of small unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) with flow diverter and LVIS-assisted coiling to determine the effects of hemodynamic changes caused by different stent and coil packing in endovascular treatment. METHODS: Fifty-one UIAs in 51 patients treated with pipeline embolization device (PED) were included in this study and defined as the PED group. We matched controls 1:1 and enrolled 51 UIAs who were treated with LVIS stent, which were defined as the LVIS group. Computational fluid dynamics were performed to assess hemodynamic alterations between PED and LVIS. Clinical analysis was also performed between these two groups after the match. RESULTS: There was no difference in procedural complications between the two groups (P = 0.558). At the first angiographic follow-up, the complete occlusion rate was significantly higher in the LVIS group compared with that in the PED group (98.0% vs. 82.4%, P = 0.027). However, during the further angiographic follow-up, the complete occlusion rate in the PED group achieved 100%, which was higher than that in the LVIS group (98.0%). Compared with the LVIS group after treatment, cases in the PED group showed a higher value of velocity in the aneurysm (0.03 ± 0.09 vs. 0.01 ± 0.01, P = 0.037) and WSS on the aneurysm (2.32 ± 5.40 vs. 0.33 ± 0.47, P = 0.011). Consequently, the reduction ratios of these two parameters also showed statistical differences. These parameters in the LVIS group showed much higher reduction ratios. However, the reduction ratio of the velocity on the neck plane was comparable between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both LVIS and PED were safe and effective for the treatment of small UIAs. However, LVIS-assisted coiling produced greater hemodynamic alterations in the aneurysm sac compared with PED. The hemodynamics in the aneurysm neck may be a key factor for aneurysm outcome. BioMed Central 2021-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8638548/ /pubmed/34852851 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41016-021-00266-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Liu, Jian
Li, Wenqiang
Zhang, Yisen
Wang, Kun
Yang, Xinjian
Zhang, Ying
Hemodynamic analysis for endovascular treatment in small unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a matched comparison study of flow diverter versus LVIS
title Hemodynamic analysis for endovascular treatment in small unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a matched comparison study of flow diverter versus LVIS
title_full Hemodynamic analysis for endovascular treatment in small unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a matched comparison study of flow diverter versus LVIS
title_fullStr Hemodynamic analysis for endovascular treatment in small unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a matched comparison study of flow diverter versus LVIS
title_full_unstemmed Hemodynamic analysis for endovascular treatment in small unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a matched comparison study of flow diverter versus LVIS
title_short Hemodynamic analysis for endovascular treatment in small unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a matched comparison study of flow diverter versus LVIS
title_sort hemodynamic analysis for endovascular treatment in small unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a matched comparison study of flow diverter versus lvis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8638548/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34852851
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41016-021-00266-w
work_keys_str_mv AT liujian hemodynamicanalysisforendovasculartreatmentinsmallunrupturedintracranialaneurysmsamatchedcomparisonstudyofflowdiverterversuslvis
AT liwenqiang hemodynamicanalysisforendovasculartreatmentinsmallunrupturedintracranialaneurysmsamatchedcomparisonstudyofflowdiverterversuslvis
AT zhangyisen hemodynamicanalysisforendovasculartreatmentinsmallunrupturedintracranialaneurysmsamatchedcomparisonstudyofflowdiverterversuslvis
AT wangkun hemodynamicanalysisforendovasculartreatmentinsmallunrupturedintracranialaneurysmsamatchedcomparisonstudyofflowdiverterversuslvis
AT yangxinjian hemodynamicanalysisforendovasculartreatmentinsmallunrupturedintracranialaneurysmsamatchedcomparisonstudyofflowdiverterversuslvis
AT zhangying hemodynamicanalysisforendovasculartreatmentinsmallunrupturedintracranialaneurysmsamatchedcomparisonstudyofflowdiverterversuslvis