Abstract
Background: Flow diverters and conventional coiling are established modalities for the retreatment of intracranial recurrent aneurysms after initial endovascular treatment. We aimed to compare the efficacy of these techniques.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data for patients with recurrent aneurysms after initial endovascular treatment retreated in our center with either a pipeline embolization device (PED) or conventional coil embolization from January 2012 to July 2020. We performed 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) using the nearest neighbor method. We controlled for: initial treatment strategy, aneurysm size, neck diameter, symptom presentation, history of aneurysm rupture, age, sex, fusiform-dissecting aneurysm, bifurcation aneurysm, and aneurysm location. The clinical and morphological factors of all patients at initial treatment and the angiographic and clinical results at the second treatment were collected and compared between the propensity-matched pairs.Results: A total of 105 intracranial aneurysms were identified; 18 patients (17.1%) were treated with a PED, and 87 (82.9%) were treated via conventional coil embolization. PSM resulted in 12 matched pairs (12 patients in the PED group and 24 in the coiling group). There was no significant difference of ischemic and hemorrhagic complications between the groups, the obliteration rate of branches covered by stent, or modified Rankin Scale scores at the last clinical follow-up. Importantly, the retreatment strategy in the PED group provided significantly different results vs. the coiling group (P < 0.001), with a lower recurrence rate (0.0 vs. 29.2%, respectively; P = 0.037). However, the procedural failure rate and the parent artery stenosis were more frequently in PED group compared with coiling group (both were 16.7 vs. 0.0%; P = 0.040).Conclusions: Endovascular retreatment for recurrent aneurysms after initial endovascular treatment might be safe and effective. Flow diverters might be associated with reduced risk of recanalization and an increased risk of procedural failure and mild parent artery stenosis.
Highlights
Coil embolization is a well-established treatment modality to prevent the rupture of intracranial aneurysms; the method has a higher technique failure rate and recurrence rate in complex aneurysms [1,2,3,4,5]
All patients included in this study met the following inclusion criteria: [1] intracranial aneurysms confirmed by digital subtraction angiography and treated with endovascular treatment; [2] recanalization at the first follow-up angiography and re-treated with endovascular treatment; and [3] further follow-up angiographic imaging to determine whether the aneurysm had recanalized after retreatment
12 patients with recurrent aneurysms were re-treated with pipeline embolization device (PED) and 24 patients undergoing conventional coiling treatment were included after propensity score matching
Summary
Coil embolization is a well-established treatment modality to prevent the rupture of intracranial aneurysms; the method has a higher technique failure rate and recurrence rate in complex aneurysms [1,2,3,4,5]. Previous studies reported encouraging results with endovascular treatment (coil embolization with or without stents and flow diverters) for recurrent aneurysms [6, 13,14,15,16,17]. In this study, using propensity score matching, we compared the safety and efficacy of retreatment in patients with recurrent aneurysms after initial endovascular treatment who were retreated with either a pipeline embolization device (PED; Covidien, Boulder, CO) or coil embolization. Flow diverters and conventional coiling are established modalities for the retreatment of intracranial recurrent aneurysms after initial endovascular treatment.
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.
