Comparison of a covered stent and pipeline embolization device in intracranial aneurysm: a propensity score matching analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: The Willis covered stent (WCS) and pipeline embolization device (PED) have partly overlapping therapeutic indications. However, the differences of effect between these two treatments remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcome, angiographic outcome, and complications following treatment with a WCS versus PED. METHODS: Patients with intracranial aneurysms treated by a WCS or PED between January 2015 and December 2020 were included. The primary outcomes were complications, clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale score >2), and angiographic outcome (incomplete aneurysm occlusion). Propensity score matching was conducted to adjust for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 94 aneurysms treated by WCS and 698 aneurysms by PED were included. Compared with the PED group, patients in the WCS group are younger, a greater number have a poor condition at admission, a larger proportion of ruptured, non-saccular, and anterior circulation aneurysms, a smaller aneurysm neck width, and less coiling assistance is required. A total of 42 (44.7%) branches were covered by WCS. After adjustment for age, sex, aneurysm type, rupture status, neck size, aneurysm location, and coiling, 50 WCS and PED pairs were examined for internal carotid artery aneurysms. No significant differences were observed in clinical (10.4% vs 2.1%, P=0.206) and angiographic outcomes (12.8% vs 18.2%, P=0.713). However, 27 branches covered by WCS, including 22 ophthalmic arteries and five posterior communicating arteries. Patients in the WCS group had a higher intraoperative complication rate than those in the PED group (28% vs 6%, P=0.008), especially in the occlusion rate of covered branches (51.9% vs 11.1%, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The comparable clinical and angiographic outcomes of WCS or PED demonstrate the therapeutic potential of WCS as a viable alternative for aneurysms. However, the complication of occlusion of covered branches might not be negligible.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.