Abstract
Locally compacting the mesh of a flow diverter by a dynamic push-pull technique can accelerate intracranial aneurysm healing. We asked how this deployment strategy compares with overlapping 2 flow diverters for aneurysmal flow reduction. Using a high-fidelity virtual stent placement method, we simulated 3 flow-diverter strategies (single noncompacted, 2 overlapped, and single compacted) in 3 aneurysms (fusiform, large saccular, and medium saccular). Computational fluid dynamics analysis provided posttreatment hemodynamic parameters, including time-averaged inflow rate, aneurysm-averaged velocity, wall shear stress, total absolute circulation, and turnover time. We examined the relationship between the achieved degree of compaction and aneurysm orifice area. Flow-diverter compaction resulted in a compaction coverage of 57%, 47%, and 22% over the orifice of the fusiform, large, and medium saccular aneurysm, respectively. Compaction coverage increased linearly with orifice area. In the fusiform aneurysm, the single compacted flow diverter accomplished more aneurysmal flow reduction than the other 2 strategies, as indicated by all 5 hemodynamic parameters. In the 2 saccular aneurysms, the overlapped flow diverters achieved the most flow reduction, followed by the single compacted and the noncompacted flow diverter. Compacting a single flow diverter can outperform overlapping 2 flow diverters in aneurysmal flow reduction, provided that the compaction produces a mesh denser than 2 overlapped flow diverters and this denser mesh covers a sufficient portion of the aneurysm orifice area, for which we suggest a minimum of 50%. This strategy is most effective for aneurysms with large orifices, especially fusiform aneurysms.
Highlights
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSELocally compacting the mesh of a flow diverter by a dynamic push-pull technique can accelerate intracranial aneurysm healing
Compacting a single flow diverter can outperform overlapping 2 flow diverters in aneurysmal flow reduction, provided that the compaction produces a mesh denser than 2 overlapped flow diverters and this denser mesh covers a sufficient portion of the aneurysm orifice area, for which we suggest a minimum of 50%
Treatment strategies aimed at reducing aneurysmal flow beyond that achievable by conventional Flow diverters (FDs) deployment can decrease the time to occlusion and reduce rupture risk.[3]
Summary
Using a high-fidelity virtual stent placement method, we simulated 3 flow-diverter strategies (single noncompacted, 2 overlapped, and single compacted) in 3 aneurysms (fusiform, large saccular, and medium saccular). To create the 3D IA models, we segmented their angiographic images by using the level set and marching cube methods in The Vascular Modeling Toolkit (www.vmtk.org).[16] To make the FD deployment simulations computationally tractable, we assumed that the IA models were rigid. This assumption was reasonable because FDs exhibit lower radial forces[1] than closed-pore stents and have less effect on vessel morphology
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
