• Willem Jan van Rooij, Ratna S Bechan, Jo P Peluso, and Menno Sluzewski.
• Department of Radiology, St Elisabeth Ziekenhuis; Tilburg, The Netherlands - radiol@eztilburg.nl.
• Interv Neuroradiol. 2014 Jul 1;20(4):428-35.

AbstractFlow diverter devices became available in our department in 2009. We considered treatment with flow diverters only in patients with aneurysms not suitable for surgery or conventional endovascular techniques. This paper presents our preliminary experience with flow diverters in a consecutive series of 550 endovascular aneurysm treatments. Between January 2009 and July 2013, 550 endovascular treatments for intracranial aneurysms were performed. Of these, 490 were first-time aneurysm treatments in 464 patients and 61 were additional treatments of previously coiled aneurysms in 51 patients. Endovascular treatments consisted of selective coiling in 445 (80.8%), stent-assisted coiling in 68 (12.4%), balloon-assisted coiling in 13 (2.4%), parent vessel occlusion in 12 (2.2%) and flow diverter treatment in 12 (2.2%). Eleven patients with 12 aneurysms were treated with flow diverters. Two patients had ruptured dissecting aneurysms. One patient with a basilar trunk aneurysm died of acute in stent thrombosis and another patient died of brain stem ischaemia at 32 months follow-up. One patient had ischaemia with permanent neurological deficit. Two aneurysms are still open at up to 30 months follow-up. Flow diversion was used in 2% of all endovascular treatments. Both our own poor results and the high complication rates reported in the literature have converted our initial enthusiasm to apprehension and hesitancy. The safety and efficacy profile of flow diversion should discourage the use of these devices in aneurysms that can be treated with other techniques.

36 keywords...

hide…