Interventional Radiology
Comparison of the Pipeline Flex and the first-generation Pipeline embolization device for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms
Wu Qiaowei, Li Tianxiao, Li Li, Shao Qiuji, Chang Kaitao, He Yingkun
Published 2020-07-10
Cite as Chin J Radiol, 2020, 54(7): 702-706. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112149-20190722-00628
Abstract
ObjectiveTo compare procedural parameters and perioperative complications between the first-generation Pipeline embolization device (PED Classic) and the second-generation Pipeline embolization device (PED Flex).
MethodsA total of 53 patients who underwent intracranial aneurysm treatment with the PED Classic from February 2015 to August 2016 and 118 patients who underwent treatment with the PED Flex from January 2018 to July 2019 at Zhengzhou University People's Hospital were enrolled in this retrospective study. Procedure time, contrast dosage, fluoroscopy time and perioperative complications in the two groups were recorded. Independent sample t-test was performed to analyze the difference of procedure time, contrast dosage and fluoroscopy time between the two groups, and Chi-square test was performed to analyze the perioperative complications.
ResultsThere were 53 cases with 73 aneurysms in the PED Classic group and 118 cases with 146 aneurysms in the PED Flex group. The procedure time was (159.0±42.0) min in the PED Classic group, and (121.9±46.0) min in the PED Flex group. The difference was statistically significant (t=5.012, P<0.001). The contrast dosage was (156.4±39.4) ml in the PED Classic group and (110.1±38.5) ml in the PED Flex group. The difference was statistically significant (t=7.229, P<0.001). The difference of fluoroscopy time between PED Classic group and PED Flex group was also statistically significant (t=10.196, P<0.001), with the average of (34.7±5.7) min and (22.8±7.6) min, respectively. The perioperative complications rate in the PED Classic group (9.4%, 5/53) was higher than that of the PED Flex group (2.5%, 3/118), but there was no statistical significance between the two groups (χ²=2.503, P=0.114).
ConclusionThe use of PED Flex seems safe in treating intracranial aneurysms, and the device deployment is easier compared with the use of PED Classic. However, serious complications remain to be noted.
Key words:
Intracranial aneurysm; Radiology, interventional; Cerebral revascularization; Perioperative complications; Pipeline embolization device
Contributor Information
Wu Qiaowei
Department of Cerebrovascular Intervention, Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou 450003, China
Li Tianxiao
Department of Cerebrovascular Intervention, Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou 450003, China
Li Li
Department of Cerebrovascular Intervention, Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou 450003, China
Shao Qiuji
Department of Cerebrovascular Intervention, Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou 450003, China
Chang Kaitao
Department of Cerebrovascular Intervention, Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou 450003, China
He Yingkun
Department of Cerebrovascular Intervention, Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou 450003, China
