Flow Diversion Versus Conventional Treatment for Carotid Cavernous Aneurysms
Background and Purpose—Several endovascular treatment options are available for cavernous carotid aneurysms. We compared pipeline embolization device (PED) versus conventional endovascular treatment in terms of evolution of mass effect, complications, recurrence, and retreatment rate.
Methods—One hundred fifty-seven patients harboring 167 cavernous carotid aneurysms were treated using PED placement, coiling, stent-assisted coiling, and carotid vessel destruction. Procedural complications, angiographic results, and clinical outcomes were analyzed and compared.
Results—There were no difference in age, sex, and mean aneurysm size between those treated with PED and those treated with conventional endovascular procedures. The patients treated with PED had a significantly lower proportion of small-size aneurysms (<10 mm) and a shorter follow-up duration. Multivariate analysis revealed treatment other than PED (PED: odds ratio [OR], 0.03; P=0.002) and size >15 mm (OR, 4.27; P=0.003) to be predictors of no improvement in symptoms. The rate of complete occlusion was 81.36% (48 of 59) for PED, 42.25% (39 of 71) for stent-assisted coiling, 27.27% (6 of 22) for coiling, and 73.33% (11 of 15) for carotid vessel destruction. Retreatment was needed in patients with aneurysm size >15 mm (OR, 2.67; P=0.037) and those who were not treated with PED (PED: OR, 0.16; P=0.006). The rate of major complications was 6.6% (11 of 167). Patients who were treated with PED or stent-assisted coiling had 3.84 lower odds to develop complications (OR, 0.26; P<0.05).
Conclusions—The use of PED should be encouraged, especially in symptomatic patients. We found PED to be associated with less need for future treatment, higher improvement in symptoms rate, and lower rate of complications.
- cerebral aneurysm
- complication intraoperative
- complication peroperative
- complication postoperative
- endovascular procedure
- endovascular technique
- intracranial aneurysm
- Received May 27, 2014.
- Revision received May 27, 2014.
- Accepted June 25, 2014.
- © 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.