Evidence Hub

Safety and efficacy of the Pipeline Flex embolization device with Shield Technology for the acute treatment of ruptured internal carotid artery pseudoaneurysms: a multi-institution case series

Michael T. Bounajem, E. Joyce, J. Scoville, J. Seinfeld, Jessa Hoffman, J. Grossberg, V. Waiters, A. White et al.

Neurosurgical Focus, 2023

8 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Ruptured blister, dissecting, and iatrogenic pseudoaneurysms are rare pathologies that pose significant challenges from a treatment standpoint. Endovascular treatment via flow diversion represents an increasingly popular option; however, drawbacks include the requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy and the potential for thromboembolic complications, particularly acute complications in the ruptured setting. The Pipeline Flex embolization device with Shield Technology (PED-Shield) offers reduced material thrombogenicity, which may aid in the treatment of ruptured internal carotid artery pseudoaneurysms.

METHODS

The authors conducted a multi-institution, retrospective case series to determine the safety and efficacy of PED-Shield for the treatment of ruptured blister, dissecting, and iatrogenic pseudoaneurysms of the internal carotid artery. Clinical, radiographic, treatment, and outcomes data were collected.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were included in the final analysis. Seventeen underwent placement of a single device, and 16 underwent placement of two devices. No thromboembolic complications occurred. Four patients were maintained on aspirin alone, and all others were treated with long-term dual antiplatelet therapy. Among patients with 3-month follow-up, 93.8% had a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2. Complete occlusion at follow-up was observed in 82.6% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

PED-Shield represents a new option for the treatment of ruptured blister,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free