Comparison of the Pipeline Flex and the first-generation Pipeline embolization device for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms
10.3760/cma.j.cn112149-20190722-00628
- VernacularTitle:Pipeline Flex与第一代Pipeline血流导向装置治疗颅内动脉瘤的对比研究
- Author:
Qiaowei WU
1
;
Tianxiao LI
;
Li LI
;
Qiuji SHAO
;
Kaitao CHANG
;
Yingkun HE
Author Information
1. 郑州大学人民医院 河南省人民医院脑血管介入科 450003
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiology
2020;54(7):702-706
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare procedural parameters and perioperative complications between the first-generation Pipeline embolization device (PED Classic) and the second-generation Pipeline embolization device (PED Flex).Methods:A 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. Results:There 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 (χ 2=2.503, P=0.114). Conclusion:The 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.
