Pipeline Embolization Device with or without Adjunctive Coil Embolization: Analysis of Complications from the IntrePED Registry
M S Park, C Kilburg, P Taussky, F C Albuquerque, D F Kallmes, E I Levy, P Jabbour, I Szikora, E Boccardi, R A Hanel, A Bonafé, C G McDougall, M S Park, C Kilburg, P Taussky, F C Albuquerque, D F Kallmes, E I Levy, P Jabbour, I Szikora, E Boccardi, R A Hanel, A Bonafé, C G McDougall
Abstract
Flow diversion to treat cerebral aneurysms has revolutionized neurointerventional surgery. Because the addition of coils potentially increases the time and complexity of endovascular procedures, we sought to determine whether adjunctive coil use is associated with an increase in complications. Patients in the International Retrospective Study of Pipeline Embolization Device registry were divided into those treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device alone (n = 689 patients; n = 797 aneurysms; mean aneurysm size, 10.3 ± 7.6 mm) versus those treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device and concurrent coil embolization (n = 104 patients; n = 109 aneurysms; mean aneurysm size, 13.6 ± 7.8 mm). Patient demographics and aneurysm characteristics were examined. Rates of neurologic morbidity and mortality were compared between groups. The Pipeline Embolization Device with versus without coiling required a significantly longer procedure time (135.8 ± 63.9 versus 96.7 ± 46.2 min; P < .0001) and resulted in higher neurological morbidity (12.5% versus 7.8%; P = .13). These data suggest that either strategy represents an acceptable risk profile in the treatment of complex cerebral aneurysms and warrants further investigation.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01558102.
© 2016 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.
Source: PubMed