• Farhang Rashidi, Mohammad Amin Habibi, Mahsa Reyhani, Mohammad Sadegh Fallahi, Mohammad Reza Arshadi, Mohammadmahdi Sabahi, Kunal Vakharia, and Scott Y Rahimi.
• School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
• World Neurosurg. 2024 Sep 1; 189: 399409.e18399-409.e18.

BackgroundWhen it comes to intracranial aneurysms, the quest for more effective treatments is ongoing. Flow diversion represents a growing advancement in this field. This review seeks to compare 2 variants of the endovascular flow diversion method: the Flow Re-Direction Endoluminal Device (FRED) and the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED).MethodsA systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase, using appropriate terms to compare PED and FRED in double-arm studies from conception until October 8th, 2023.ResultsThe meta-analysis encompassed 1769 patients, with a predominance of females (75.5%), among whom 973 patients underwent FRED procedures, while 651 received PED interventions. At 6 months, complete occlusion rates were 0.62 for FRED and 0.68 for PED (P = 0.68). At 1 year and the last follow-up, no significant differences were observed between FRED and PED, respectively. Adequate occlusion rates were similar between FRED and PED (0.82 vs. 0.79, P = 0.68). FRED showed a statistically significant higher rate of good mRS scores at follow-up (1.00 vs. 0.97, P = 0.03). Hemorrhage and re-treatment rates were higher in PED (P < 0.01) without considering the rupture status of the aneurysms due to the lack of data.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests comparable efficacy but different safety profiles between FRED and PED in treating intracranial aneurysms. FRED demonstrated a higher rate of good modified Rankin scores, while PED showed increased hemorrhage and re-treatment rates. Understanding these differences is crucial for informed decision-making in clinical practice.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

16 keywords...

hide…