Comparison of Pipeline Embolization and Coil Embolization for the Treatment of Large Unruptured Paraclinoid Aneurysms
The efficacy of flow diversion (FD) in the treatment of paraclinoid aneurysms has been established. The pipeline embolization device (PED) is one of the most commonly used FD devices. Coil embolization is also useful for treating paraclinoid aneurysms. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and sa...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Neurologia medico-chirurgica 2022, Vol.62(2), pp.97-104 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 104 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 97 |
| container_title | Neurologia medico-chirurgica |
| container_volume | 62 |
| creator | SUZUKI, Ryotaro TAKIGAWA, Tomoji NARIAI, Yasuhiko HYODO, Akio SUZUKI, Kensuke |
| description | The efficacy of flow diversion (FD) in the treatment of paraclinoid aneurysms has been established. The pipeline embolization device (PED) is one of the most commonly used FD devices. Coil embolization is also useful for treating paraclinoid aneurysms. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PED treatment and coil embolization for large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms. This was a single-center, retrospective study of large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms treated endovascularly between 2009 and 2019 (coil embolization between 2009 and 2015, and PED between 2015 and 2019). Cases with a follow-up period of less than 1 year and recurrence after coil embolization were excluded. The treatment outcomes between coil embolization and PED were compared. We investigated 45 patients with 45 large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms treated by endovascular surgery in our institution. Twenty-four patients were treated with coil embolization and 21 with PED. In the PED group, the device cost was significantly lower (2,770.4 ± 699.5 vs. 1941.2 ± 552.8 [1000 yen], P = 0.03), procedure duration was significantly shorter (155.4 ± 66.7 vs. 95.1 ± 35.4 min, P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2176/nmc.oa.2021-0242 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8841233</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2634871032</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c698t-a05da15834974df6d131e95478a2cc46d971947bbc0f90194ace6f6ac3b3bb6b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVUU1r3DAUFKWlWdLceyqGnr3Vl_VxKYQlSQsLzSE5i2dZ3lWwpa1kF5JfXzmbbpOD9ITevJmRBqHPBK8pkeJbGO06wppiSmpMOX2HVoRxXStM9Xu0wlziWhHcnKGLnH2LC0ZxpuRHdMa4bDSWZIXmTRwPkHyOoYp9desPbvDBVVdjGwf_BJMvDQhdtYl-eHvbx1RNe1fdJQfT6MK0EGwh7Vx1H9J8mObkuuoWEthCGX1XXQY3p8c85k_oQw9Ddhcv9RzdX1_dbX7U2183PzeX29oKraYacNMBaVR5leRdLzrCiNMNlwqotVx0WhLNZdta3GtcjmCd6AVY1rK2FS07R9-PvIe5HV1ni8kEgzkkP0J6NBG8edsJfm928Y9RihPKWCH4-kKQ4u_Z5ck8xDmF4tlQwbiSBDNaUPiIsinmnFx_UiDYLFmZklVRM0tWZsmqjHx57ew08C-ZArg5AkrXWxhiWHL5L287svymWzipwViUupSytDSYYM50o-mzu-sj00OeYOdOUpAmbwf37E1QQ5fttccTwO4hGRfYXwdFwrc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2634871032</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Pipeline Embolization and Coil Embolization for the Treatment of Large Unruptured Paraclinoid Aneurysms</title><source>PubMed Central (Open access)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>J-STAGE</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>SUZUKI, Ryotaro ; TAKIGAWA, Tomoji ; NARIAI, Yasuhiko ; HYODO, Akio ; SUZUKI, Kensuke</creator><creatorcontrib>SUZUKI, Ryotaro ; TAKIGAWA, Tomoji ; NARIAI, Yasuhiko ; HYODO, Akio ; SUZUKI, Kensuke ; Department of Neurosurgery ; Dokkyo Medical University Saitama Medical Center</creatorcontrib><description>The efficacy of flow diversion (FD) in the treatment of paraclinoid aneurysms has been established. The pipeline embolization device (PED) is one of the most commonly used FD devices. Coil embolization is also useful for treating paraclinoid aneurysms. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PED treatment and coil embolization for large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms. This was a single-center, retrospective study of large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms treated endovascularly between 2009 and 2019 (coil embolization between 2009 and 2015, and PED between 2015 and 2019). Cases with a follow-up period of less than 1 year and recurrence after coil embolization were excluded. The treatment outcomes between coil embolization and PED were compared. We investigated 45 patients with 45 large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms treated by endovascular surgery in our institution. Twenty-four patients were treated with coil embolization and 21 with PED. In the PED group, the device cost was significantly lower (2,770.4 ± 699.5 vs. 1941.2 ± 552.8 [1000 yen], P = 0.03), procedure duration was significantly shorter (155.4 ± 66.7 vs. 95.1 ± 35.4 min, P <0.01), and the numbers of re-treatments were lower than those in the coil embolization group (41.7 vs. 14.3%, P = 0.05). Both PED and coil embolization were effective and safe for large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms, and their treatment results were similar. The PED is more beneficial because of its lower cost, shorter procedure duration, and fewer retreatments, and is therefore more useful for the treatment of large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0470-8105</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1349-8029</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2176/nmc.oa.2021-0242</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34759071</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Japan: The Japan Neurosurgical Society</publisher><subject>Aneurysm ; Aneurysms ; Cardiovascular system ; coil embolization ; Embolization ; Embolization, Therapeutic - adverse effects ; Endovascular coiling ; flow diversion ; Humans ; Intracranial Aneurysm - surgery ; Original ; Patients ; pipeline embolization device ; Retrospective Studies ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome ; unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms</subject><ispartof>Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 2022, Vol.62(2), pp.97-104</ispartof><rights>2022 The Japan Neurosurgical Society</rights><rights>2022. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 The Japan Neurosurgical Society 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c698t-a05da15834974df6d131e95478a2cc46d971947bbc0f90194ace6f6ac3b3bb6b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c698t-a05da15834974df6d131e95478a2cc46d971947bbc0f90194ace6f6ac3b3bb6b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8841233/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8841233/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,1883,4024,27923,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34759071$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>SUZUKI, Ryotaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TAKIGAWA, Tomoji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NARIAI, Yasuhiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HYODO, Akio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SUZUKI, Kensuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Department of Neurosurgery</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dokkyo Medical University Saitama Medical Center</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Pipeline Embolization and Coil Embolization for the Treatment of Large Unruptured Paraclinoid Aneurysms</title><title>Neurologia medico-chirurgica</title><addtitle>Neurol. Med. Chir.(Tokyo)</addtitle><description>The efficacy of flow diversion (FD) in the treatment of paraclinoid aneurysms has been established. The pipeline embolization device (PED) is one of the most commonly used FD devices. Coil embolization is also useful for treating paraclinoid aneurysms. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PED treatment and coil embolization for large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms. This was a single-center, retrospective study of large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms treated endovascularly between 2009 and 2019 (coil embolization between 2009 and 2015, and PED between 2015 and 2019). Cases with a follow-up period of less than 1 year and recurrence after coil embolization were excluded. The treatment outcomes between coil embolization and PED were compared. We investigated 45 patients with 45 large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms treated by endovascular surgery in our institution. Twenty-four patients were treated with coil embolization and 21 with PED. In the PED group, the device cost was significantly lower (2,770.4 ± 699.5 vs. 1941.2 ± 552.8 [1000 yen], P = 0.03), procedure duration was significantly shorter (155.4 ± 66.7 vs. 95.1 ± 35.4 min, P <0.01), and the numbers of re-treatments were lower than those in the coil embolization group (41.7 vs. 14.3%, P = 0.05). Both PED and coil embolization were effective and safe for large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms, and their treatment results were similar. The PED is more beneficial because of its lower cost, shorter procedure duration, and fewer retreatments, and is therefore more useful for the treatment of large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms.</description><subject>Aneurysm</subject><subject>Aneurysms</subject><subject>Cardiovascular system</subject><subject>coil embolization</subject><subject>Embolization</subject><subject>Embolization, Therapeutic - adverse effects</subject><subject>Endovascular coiling</subject><subject>flow diversion</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intracranial Aneurysm - surgery</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>pipeline embolization device</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms</subject><issn>0470-8105</issn><issn>1349-8029</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVUU1r3DAUFKWlWdLceyqGnr3Vl_VxKYQlSQsLzSE5i2dZ3lWwpa1kF5JfXzmbbpOD9ITevJmRBqHPBK8pkeJbGO06wppiSmpMOX2HVoRxXStM9Xu0wlziWhHcnKGLnH2LC0ZxpuRHdMa4bDSWZIXmTRwPkHyOoYp9desPbvDBVVdjGwf_BJMvDQhdtYl-eHvbx1RNe1fdJQfT6MK0EGwh7Vx1H9J8mObkuuoWEthCGX1XXQY3p8c85k_oQw9Ddhcv9RzdX1_dbX7U2183PzeX29oKraYacNMBaVR5leRdLzrCiNMNlwqotVx0WhLNZdta3GtcjmCd6AVY1rK2FS07R9-PvIe5HV1ni8kEgzkkP0J6NBG8edsJfm928Y9RihPKWCH4-kKQ4u_Z5ck8xDmF4tlQwbiSBDNaUPiIsinmnFx_UiDYLFmZklVRM0tWZsmqjHx57ew08C-ZArg5AkrXWxhiWHL5L287svymWzipwViUupSytDSYYM50o-mzu-sj00OeYOdOUpAmbwf37E1QQ5fttccTwO4hGRfYXwdFwrc</recordid><startdate>2022</startdate><enddate>2022</enddate><creator>SUZUKI, Ryotaro</creator><creator>TAKIGAWA, Tomoji</creator><creator>NARIAI, Yasuhiko</creator><creator>HYODO, Akio</creator><creator>SUZUKI, Kensuke</creator><general>The Japan Neurosurgical Society</general><general>THE JAPAN NEUROSURGICAL SOCIETY</general><general>Japan Science and Technology Agency</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2022</creationdate><title>Comparison of Pipeline Embolization and Coil Embolization for the Treatment of Large Unruptured Paraclinoid Aneurysms</title><author>SUZUKI, Ryotaro ; TAKIGAWA, Tomoji ; NARIAI, Yasuhiko ; HYODO, Akio ; SUZUKI, Kensuke</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c698t-a05da15834974df6d131e95478a2cc46d971947bbc0f90194ace6f6ac3b3bb6b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Aneurysm</topic><topic>Aneurysms</topic><topic>Cardiovascular system</topic><topic>coil embolization</topic><topic>Embolization</topic><topic>Embolization, Therapeutic - adverse effects</topic><topic>Endovascular coiling</topic><topic>flow diversion</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intracranial Aneurysm - surgery</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>pipeline embolization device</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>SUZUKI, Ryotaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TAKIGAWA, Tomoji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NARIAI, Yasuhiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HYODO, Akio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SUZUKI, Kensuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Department of Neurosurgery</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dokkyo Medical University Saitama Medical Center</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Neurologia medico-chirurgica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>SUZUKI, Ryotaro</au><au>TAKIGAWA, Tomoji</au><au>NARIAI, Yasuhiko</au><au>HYODO, Akio</au><au>SUZUKI, Kensuke</au><aucorp>Department of Neurosurgery</aucorp><aucorp>Dokkyo Medical University Saitama Medical Center</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Pipeline Embolization and Coil Embolization for the Treatment of Large Unruptured Paraclinoid Aneurysms</atitle><jtitle>Neurologia medico-chirurgica</jtitle><addtitle>Neurol. Med. Chir.(Tokyo)</addtitle><date>2022</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>62</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>97</spage><epage>104</epage><pages>97-104</pages><artnum>oa.2021-0242</artnum><issn>0470-8105</issn><eissn>1349-8029</eissn><abstract>The efficacy of flow diversion (FD) in the treatment of paraclinoid aneurysms has been established. The pipeline embolization device (PED) is one of the most commonly used FD devices. Coil embolization is also useful for treating paraclinoid aneurysms. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PED treatment and coil embolization for large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms. This was a single-center, retrospective study of large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms treated endovascularly between 2009 and 2019 (coil embolization between 2009 and 2015, and PED between 2015 and 2019). Cases with a follow-up period of less than 1 year and recurrence after coil embolization were excluded. The treatment outcomes between coil embolization and PED were compared. We investigated 45 patients with 45 large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms treated by endovascular surgery in our institution. Twenty-four patients were treated with coil embolization and 21 with PED. In the PED group, the device cost was significantly lower (2,770.4 ± 699.5 vs. 1941.2 ± 552.8 [1000 yen], P = 0.03), procedure duration was significantly shorter (155.4 ± 66.7 vs. 95.1 ± 35.4 min, P <0.01), and the numbers of re-treatments were lower than those in the coil embolization group (41.7 vs. 14.3%, P = 0.05). Both PED and coil embolization were effective and safe for large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms, and their treatment results were similar. The PED is more beneficial because of its lower cost, shorter procedure duration, and fewer retreatments, and is therefore more useful for the treatment of large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms.</abstract><cop>Japan</cop><pub>The Japan Neurosurgical Society</pub><pmid>34759071</pmid><doi>10.2176/nmc.oa.2021-0242</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0470-8105 |
| ispartof | Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 2022, Vol.62(2), pp.97-104 |
| issn | 0470-8105 1349-8029 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8841233 |
| source | PubMed Central (Open access); MEDLINE; Directory of Open Access Journals; J-STAGE; PubMed Central Open Access; EZB Electronic Journals Library |
| subjects | Aneurysm Aneurysms Cardiovascular system coil embolization Embolization Embolization, Therapeutic - adverse effects Endovascular coiling flow diversion Humans Intracranial Aneurysm - surgery Original Patients pipeline embolization device Retrospective Studies Time Factors Treatment Outcome unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms |
| title | Comparison of Pipeline Embolization and Coil Embolization for the Treatment of Large Unruptured Paraclinoid Aneurysms |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T08%3A40%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Pipeline%20Embolization%20and%20Coil%20Embolization%20for%20the%20Treatment%20of%20Large%20Unruptured%20Paraclinoid%20Aneurysms&rft.jtitle=Neurologia%20medico-chirurgica&rft.au=SUZUKI,%20Ryotaro&rft.aucorp=Department%20of%20Neurosurgery&rft.date=2022&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=97&rft.epage=104&rft.pages=97-104&rft.artnum=oa.2021-0242&rft.issn=0470-8105&rft.eissn=1349-8029&rft_id=info:doi/10.2176/nmc.oa.2021-0242&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2634871032%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2634871032&rft_id=info:pmid/34759071&rfr_iscdi=true |