Retrospective analysis of intracranial aneurysms after flow diverter treatment including color-coded imaging (syngo iFlow) as a predictor of aneurysm occlusion
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2022
Retrospective analysis of intracranial aneurysms after flow diverter treatment including color-coded imaging (syngo iFlow) as a predictor of aneurysm occlusion
Flow Diverters (FD) have immensely extended the treatment of cerebral aneurysms in the past years. Complete aneurysm occlusion is a process that often takes a certain amount of time and is usually difficult to predict. Our aim was to investigate different syngo iFlow parameters in order to predict aneurysm occlusion.
Methods
Between 2014 and 2018 patients with unruptured cerebral aneurysms treated with a FD were reviewed. Aneurysm occlusion and complication rates have been assessed.
In addition, various quantitative criteria were assessed using syngo iFlow before, after the intervention, and after short and long-term digital subtraction angiography (DSA).
Results
A total of 66 patients hosting 66 cerebral aneurysms were included in this study. 87.9% (n = 58) aneurysms in the anterior and 12.1% (n = 8) in the posterior circulation were treated. Adequate aneurysm occlusion at long-term follow-up (19.05 ± 15.1 months) was achieved in 90.9% (n = 60). Adequately occluded aneurysm revealed a significantly greater peak intensity delay (PI-D, p = 0.008) and intensity decrease ratio (ID-R, p < 0.001) compared to insufficiently occluded aneurysms. Increased intra-aneurysmal contrast agent intensity (>100%) after FD implantation resulted in an ID-R < 1, which was associated with aneurysm growth during follow-up DSA. Retreatment with another FD due to foreshortening and/or aneurysm growth was performed in 10.6% (n = 7). Overall morbidity and mortality rates were 1.5% (n = 1) and 0%.
Conclusion
The applied syngo iFlow parameters were found to be useful in predicting adequate aneurysm occlusion and foresee aneurysm growth, which might indicate the implantation of another FD.
ZhouGSuMZhuY-Q, et al.
Efficacy of flow-diverting devices for cerebral aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg2016;
85: 252–262.
2.
RajahGNarayananSRangel-CastillaL.Update on flow diverters for the endovascular management of cerebral aneurysms. Neurosurg Focus2017;
42: E2.
3.
DmytriwAAPhanKMooreJM, et al.
On flow diversion: the changing landscape of intracerebral aneurysm management. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2019;
40: 591–600.
4.
BecskeTBrinjikjiWPottsMB, et al.
Long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes following pipeline embolization device treatment of complex internal carotid artery aneurysms: five-year results of the pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms trial. Neurosurgery2017;
80: 40–48.
5.
OishiHTeranishiKYatomiK, et al.
Flow diverter therapy using a pipeline embolization device for 100 unruptured large and giant internal carotid artery aneurysms in a single center in a japanese population. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo)2018;
58: 461–467.
6.
PierotLSpelleLBergeJ, et al.
SAFE study (safety and efficacy analysis of FRED embolic device in aneurysm treatment): 1-year clinical and anatomical results. J NeuroIntervent Surg2019;
11: 184–189.
7.
GriessenauerCJMöhlenbruchMAHendrixP, et al.
The FRED for cerebral aneurysms of the posterior circulation: a subgroup analysis of the EuFRED registry. Ajnr Am J Neuroradiol2020;
41: 658–662.
8.
De BeuleTBoulangerTHeyeS, et al.
p64 flow diverter: results in 108 patients from a single center. Interv Neuroradiol2021;
27: 51–59.
9.
KrausBGoertzLTurowskiB, et al.
Safety and efficacy of the derivo embolization device for the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a multicentric study. J Neurointerv Surg2019;
11: 68–73.
10.
TaschnerCAStrackeCPDornF, et al.
Derivo embolization device in the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a prospective multicenter study. J Neurointerv Surg2020;
50: 016303.
11.
CebralJRMutFRaschiM, et al.
Aneurysm rupture following treatment with flow-diverting stents: computational hemodynamics analysis of treatment. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2011;
32: 27–33.
12.
MutFCebralJR.Effects of flow-diverting device oversizing on hemodynamics alteration in cerebral aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2012;
33: 2010–2016.
13.
LevittMRMcGahPMAlisedaA, et al.
Cerebral aneurysms treated with flow-diverting stents: computational models with intravascular blood flow measurements. Ajnr Am J Neuroradiol2014;
35: 143–148.
14.
TateshimaSJonesJGMayor BastoF, et al.
Aneurysm pressure measurement before and after placement of a pipeline stent: feasibility study using a 0.014 inch pressure wire for coronary intervention. J Neurointerv Surg2016;
8: 603–607.
15.
RouchaudABrinjikjiWLanzinoG, et al.
Delayed hemorrhagic complications after flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms: a literature overview. Neuroradiology2016;
58: 171–177.
16.
GölitzPStruffertTLückingH, et al.
Parametrische farbkodierung der digitalen subtraktionsangiografie für die evaluierung von karotis-avernosus fisteln. Clin Neuroradiol2013;
23: 113–120.
17.
ZentenoMMoscote-SalazarLRLeeA.Roles and rules of syngo iFLOW in neuroendovascular procedures. Romanian Neurosurgery2013;
20: 305–308.
18.
CattaneoGFMDingAJostT, et al.
In vitro, contrast agent-based evaluation of the influence of flow diverter size and position on intra-aneurysmal flow dynamics using syngo iFlow. Neuroradiology2017;
59: 1275–1283.
19.
GölitzPStruffertTRöschJ, et al.
Cerebral aneurysm treatment using flow-diverting stents: in-vivo visualization of flow alterations by parametric colour coding to predict aneurysmal occlusion: preliminary results. Eur Radiol2015;
25: 428–435.
20.
HusseinAEShownkeenMThomasA, et al.
2D parametric contrast time-density analysis for the prediction of complete aneurysm occlusion at six months' post-flow diversion stent. Interv Neuroradiol2020;
26: 468–475.
21.
TaylorLIDickersonJCDambrinoRJ, et al.
Platelet testing in flow diversion: a review of the evidence. Neurosurg Focus2017;
42: E5.
22.
KamranMYarnoldJGrunwaldIQ, et al.
Assessment of angiographic outcomes after flow diversion treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a new grading schema. Neuroradiology2011;
53: 501–508.
23.
DholakiaRJKappelADPaganoA, et al.
In vitro angiographic comparison of the flow-diversion performance of five neurovascular stents. Interv Neuroradiol2018;
24: 150–161.
24.
PaliwalNJaiswalPTutinoVM, et al.
Outcome prediction of intracranial aneurysm treatment by flow diverters using machine learning. Neurosurg Focus2018;
45: E7.
25.
SadasivanCDholakiaRPeelingL, et al.
Angiographic assessment of the efficacy of flow diverter treatment for cerebral aneurysms. Interv Neuroradiol2019;
25: 655–663.
26.
DaouBAtallahEChalouhiN, et al.
Aneurysms with persistent filling after failed treatment with the pipeline embolization device. J Neurosurg2018;
130: 1–7.
27.
GoertzLHesseNLiebigT, et al.
Retreatment strategies for recurrent and residual aneurysms after treatment with flow-diverter devices. Neuroradiology2020;
62: 1019–1028.
28.
HouKLiGLvX, et al.
Delayed rupture of intracranial aneurysms after placement of intra-luminal flow diverter. Neuroradiol J2020;
33: 451–464.
29.
DandapatSMendez-RuizAMartínez-GaldámezM, et al.
Review of current intracranial aneurysm flow diversion technology and clinical use. J Neurointerv Surg2021;
13: 54–62.
30.
KanPSrinivasanVMMbabuikeN, et al.
Aneurysms with persistent patency after treatment with the pipeline embolization device. J Neurosurg2017;
126: 1894–1898. doi:10.3171/2016.6.JNS16402.
31.
CancelliereNMNicholsonPRadovanovicI, et al.
Comparison of intra-aneurysmal flow modification using optical flow imaging to evaluate the performance of evolve and pipeline flow diverting stents. J Neurointerv Surg2020;
12: 814–817.
32.
ZhouGSuMYinY-L, et al.
Complications associated with the use of flow-diverting devices for cerebral aneurysms: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus2017;
42: E17.
33.
KellermannRSerowySBeuingO, et al.
Deployment of flow diverter devices: prediction of foreshortening and validation of the simulation in 18 clinical cases. Neuroradiology2019;
61: 1319–1326.
34.
ChalouhiNTjoumakarisSIGonzalezLF, et al.
Spontaneous delayed migration/shortening of the pipeline embolization device: report of 5 cases. Ajnr Am J Neuroradiol2013;
34: 2326–2330.
35.
PahlFHVellutini E deASCardosoACC, et al.
Vasa vasorum and the growing of thrombosed giant aneurysm of the vertebral artery: a case report. World Neurosurg2016;
85: 368.e1–368.e4.
36.
ForemanPMSalemMMGriessenauerCJ, et al.
Flow diversion for treatment of partially thrombosed aneurysms: a multicenter cohort. World Neurosurg2020;
135: e164–73–e173.
37.
LinNBrouillardAMKrishnaC, et al.
Use of coils in conjunction with the pipeline embolization device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurgery2015;
76: 142–149.
38.
GriessenauerCJEnriquez-MarulandaAXiangS, et al.
Comparison of PED and FRED flow diverters for posterior circulation aneurysms: a propensity score matched cohort study. J Neurointerv Surg2021;
13: 153–158.
39.
ChenC-WWongH-FYeY-L, et al.
Quantitative flow measurement after placing a flow diverter for a distal internal carotid artery aneurysm. J Neurointerv Surg2017;
9: 1238–1242.
40.
GölitzPLueckingHHoelterP, et al.
What is the hemodynamic effect of the woven EndoBridge? An in vivo quantification using time-density curve analysis. Neuroradiology2020;
62: 1043–1050.
