• Charlotte Zaeske, Lukas Goertz, Franziska Dorn, Bernd Turowski, Nuran Abdullayev, Marc Schlamann, Thomas Liebig, and Christoph Kabbasch.
• Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. Electronic address: charlotte.zaeske@uk-koeln.de.
• World Neurosurg. 2021 Jan 1; 145: e326-e331.

ObjectiveFlow diversion represents a safe and efficient technique for the endovascular treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms. This study compares 2 competing flow diverters, the Pipeline embolization device (PED) and the Derivo Embolization Device (DED) regarding technical aspects, clinical outcome, and angiographic results.MethodsA total of 111 patients with unruptured aneurysms were treated with the PED (n = 62) or the DED (n = 49) between 2011 and 2019. Procedural specifics, complication rates, functional outcome, and aneurysm occlusion were evaluated retrospectively.ResultsFlow-diverter implantation was technically successful in all patients. There were no significant differences regarding baseline characteristics, adjunctive coiling, and fluoroscopy time. Multiple devices were more often used in the PED group (35.6%) than in the DED group (4.1%, P < 0.001). Procedural adverse events occurred in 4 cases of each group (PED: 5.5%, DED: 8.2%, P = 0.713), including 3 thromboembolic events and 1 hemorrhagic event per group. Morbidity rates were similar between the 2 groups (PED: 2.7%, DED: 4.1%, P = 1.0). There was no procedural mortality. At 6-month follow-up, complete or near-complete occlusion (O'Kelly-Marotta scale C+D) was achieved in 79.0% (49/62) after PED implantation and 80.0% (32/40) after DED implantation (P = 0.354).ConclusionsIn regard to complication rates, functional outcome, and aneurysm occlusion, no significant differences were found between the PED and DED collective.Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

23 keywords...

hide…