• Kareem El Naamani, Panagiotis Mastorakos, Clifford J Yudkoff, Rawad Abbas, Stavropoula I Tjoumakaris, M Reid Gooch, Nabeel A Herial, Robert H Rosenwasser, Hekmat Zarzour, Richard F Schmidt, and Pascal M Jabbour.
• J. Neurosurg. 2024 Feb 1; 140 (2): 436440436-440.

ObjectiveThe object of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of the Pipeline embolization device (PED)/Pipeline Flex embolization device (PED Flex) with that of the Pipeline Flex embolization device with Shield Technology (PED Shield). After introducing the first-generation PED and the second-generation PED Flex with its updated delivery system, the PED Shield was launched with a synthetic layer of phosphorylcholine surface modification to reduce thrombogenicity.MethodsThis is a retrospective review of unruptured aneurysms treated with PED/PED Flex versus PED Shield between 2017 and 2022 at the authors' institution. Patients with ruptured aneurysms, adjunctive treatment, failed flow diverter deployment, and prior treatment of the target aneurysm were excluded. Baseline characteristics were collected for all patients, including age, sex, past medical history (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus), smoking status, aneurysm location, and aneurysm dimensions (neck, width, height) and morphology (saccular, nonsaccular). The primary outcome was procedural and periprocedural complication rates.ResultsThe study cohort comprised 200 patients with 200 aneurysms, including 150 aneurysms treated with the PED/PED Flex and 50 treated with the PED Shield. With respect to intraprocedural and periprocedural complications, length of stay, length of follow-up, and functional outcome at discharge, there was no significant difference between the two cohorts. At the midterm follow-up, the rate of in-stent stenosis (PED/PED Flex: 14.2% vs PED Shield: 14.6%, p = 0.927), aneurysm occlusion (complete occlusion: 79.5% vs 80.5%, respectively; neck remnant: 4.7% vs 12.2%; dome remnant: 15.7% vs 7.3%; p = 0.119), and the need for retreatment (5.3% vs 0%, p = 0.097) were comparable between the two cohorts.ConclusionsThis study suggests that, as compared to first- and second-generation PED and PED Flex, the third-generation PED Shield offers similar rates of complications, aneurysm occlusion, and in-stent stenosis at the midterm follow-up.

20 keywords...

hide…