Interv Neuroradiol
-
The Pipeline embolization device (PED) is one of the flow-diverting stents approved for the treatment of unruptured large or wide-necked cerebral aneurysms in 2011(1). Its use has now been extended to the treatment of recently ruptured dissecting cerebral aneurysm, carotid pseudoaneurysm from radiation injury, and blister aneurysms(2,3). We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of utilizing the PED as a primary treatment for ruptured dissecting intracranial aneurysms. ⋯ The PED is a feasible treatment option for ruptured dissecting cerebral aneurysms in acute phase. According to our experience, using PED as flow-diverters in acute SAH does not significantly increase the complication risks or mortality rate if the antiplatelet regime is carefully monitored. Future studies shall evaluate the optimal antiplatelet regimen for using the PED in the acute phase.
-
We report our experience in treatment of traumatic direct carotid cavernous fistula (CCF) via endovascular intervention. We hereof recommend an additional classification system for type A CCF and suggest respective treatment strategies. Only type A CCF patients (Barrow's classification) would be recruited for the study. ⋯ It also can supply flexible accesses to the fistulous site with various alternative embolic materials. The new classification of type A CCF based on angiographic features was helpful for planning for the embolization. Coil should be considered as the first embolic material for small size fistula meanwhile detachable balloons was suggested as the first-choice embolic agent for the medium and large size fistula.
-
Flow 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. ⋯ 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.