In recent years, newer flow diverters have been developed with surface modification and varying wire densities. Our study evaluated outcomes among three newer generation flow diverter devices, FRED-X, PED Shield and Surpass Evolve.
Methods
This was a retrospective study of patients from five participating institutions across the United States. Patients who underwent flow diversion of intracranial aneurysms using the FRED-X, PED Shield or Surpass Evolve between February 2022 and September 2024 were included. Outcomes of interest were technical success, angiographic occlusion and in-stent stenosis (ISS).
Results
Among 447 patients with 452 aneurysms, adjunct device use was highest with Surpass Evolve (36.4%) versus PED Shield (15.7%) and FRED-X (6.4%) (p < .001). Good wall apposition after angioplasty/stenting was most frequent with Surpass Evolve (32.3%) versus PED Shield (13.7%) and FRED-X (4.5%) (p < .001). At six months, complete occlusion was achieved in 69.3% (PED Shield), 63.6% (FRED-X), and 58% (Surpass Evolve) (p = .254). ISS rates were comparable at six months (p = .826). At 12 months, complete occlusion was observed in 78.9% of PED Shield, 68.4% of FRED-X, and 64.5% of Surpass Evolve aneurysms. Most ISS cases at 12 months were mild. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in occlusion rates (p = .914).
Conclusions
Flow diversion using FRED-X, PED Shield and Surpass Evolve resulted in comparable rates of angiographic occlusion and ISS. However, adjunctive devices were more commonly needed with Surpass Evolve.
DmytriwAADibasMAdeebN, et al.The pipeline embolization device: a decade of lessons learned in the treatment of posterior circulation aneurysms in a multicenter cohort. J Neurosurg2022; 137: 1454–1461.
2.
KashkoushAEl-AbtahMEPetittJC, et al.Flow diversion for the treatment of intracranial bifurcation aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurointerv Surg2024; 16: 921–927.
3.
Al-MuftiFAmuluruKGandhiCD, et al.Flow diversion for intracranial aneurysm management: a new standard of care. Neurotherapeutics2016; 13: 582–589.
4.
NelsonPKLylykPSzikoraI, et al.The pipeline embolization device for the intracranial treatment of aneurysms trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2011; 32: 34–40.
5.
PierotLSpelleLBergeJ, et al.SAFE study (safety and efficacy analysis of FRED embolic device in aneurysm treatment): 1-year clinical and anatomical results. J Neurointerv Surg2019; 11: 184–189.
6.
El NaamaniKMastorakosPYudkoffCJ, et al.Comparison of PED/PED flex and PED shield in the treatment of unruptured intracerebral aneurysms. J Neurosurg2024; 140: 436–440.
7.
GuimaraensLSaldañaJVivasE, et al.Flow diverter stents for endovascular treatment of aneurysms: a comparative study of efficacy and safety between FREDX and FRED. J Neurointerv Surg2025; 17: e159–e165.
8.
Ramirez-VelandiaFEnriquez-MarulandaAFiloJ, et al.Comparison of thromboembolic events between pipeline embolization device (PED) shield and PED/PED flex: a propensity score-matched analysis. Neurosurgery2024; 95: 330–338.
9.
RoyJMMusmarBEl NaamaniK, et al.Comparative analysis of safety and efficacy of flow diversion with and without surface modification technology, FRED-X, FRED, PED shield and PED in 386 patients: a single center experience with systematic review and network meta analysis. J Neurol Sci2024; 468: 123336.
10.
HagenMWGirdharGWainwrightJ, et al.Thrombogenicity of flow diverters in an ex vivo shunt model: effect of phosphorylcholine surface modification. J Neurointerv Surg2017; 9: 1006–1011.
11.
OrruERiceHDe VilliersL, et al.First clinical experience with the new surpass evolve flow diverter: technical and clinical considerations. J Neurointerv Surg2020; 12: 974–980.
12.
DibasMVivanco-SuarezJLopesDK, et al.Treatment of unruptured small and medium-sized wide necked aneurysms using the 64-wire surpass evolve: a subanalysis from the SEASE international registry. J Am Heart Assoc2024; 13: e036365.
13.
Rodriguez-CalienesAVivanco-SuarezJCastillo-HuertaNM, et al.Performance assessment of the surpass evolve flow diverter for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Interv Neuroradiol2024: 15910199241284412. doi: 10.1177/15910199241284412
14.
SadasivanCFiorellaD. Preliminary in vitro angiographic comparison of the flow diversion behavior of evolve and pipeline devices. J Neurointerv Surg2020; 12: 616–620.
15.
AtasoyDKandasamyNHartJ, et al.Outcome study of the pipeline embolization device with shield technology in unruptured aneurysms (PEDSU). AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2019; 40: 2094–2101.
16.
BounajemMTJoyceEScovilleJP, et al.Safety and efficacy of the pipeline flex embolization device with shield technology for the acute treatment of ruptured internal carotid artery pseudoaneurysms: a multi-institution case series. Neurosurg Focus2023; 54: E4.
17.
GoertzLStyczenHSiebertE, et al.FRED X flow diverter for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: two-center experience and mini-review of the literature. Interv Neuroradiol2024: 15910199241246018. doi: 10.1177/15910199241246018
18.
GoertzLHohenstattSVollherbstDF, et al.Lower-ischemic-risk profile of coated flow redirection endoluminal device X compared with uncoated flow redirection endoluminal device flow diverter in the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurgery2025; 96: 997–1007.
19.
WaqasMDossaniRHAlkhaldiM, et al.Flow redirection endoluminal device (FRED) for treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review. Interv Neuroradiol2022; 28: 347–357.
20.
ClausenTMNakamuraRConchingA, et al.Flow diversion in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms using the novel FRED X device: an early experience from a single high-volume center. Interv Neuroradiol2025: 15910199251319059. doi: 10.1177/15910199251319059
21.
Vivanco-SuarezJDibasMLopesDK, et al.Safety and effectiveness assessment of the surpass evolve (SEASE): a post-market international multicenter study. J Neurointerv Surg2025; 17: 277–283.
22.
StarkeRMThompsonJPaganiA, et al.Preclinical safety and efficacy evaluation of the pipeline vantage embolization device with shield technology. J Neurointerv Surg2020; 12: 981–986.
23.
JeeTKYeonJYKimKH, et al.Early clinical experience of using the surpass evolve flow diverter in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Neuroradiology2022; 64: 343–351.
24.
FieldNCCustozzoAGajjarAA, et al.Comparison of pipeline embolization device, flow re-direction endoluminal device and surpass flow diverters in the treatment of intracerebral aneurysms. Interv Neuroradiol2023: 15910199231196621. doi: 10.1177/15910199231196621
25.
LabeyrieP-EGoryBSadeh-GonikeU, et al.Early angiographic changes of intra-aneurysmal flow after flow-diverter stent treatment are not predictive of therapeutic success. Interv Neuroradiol2016; 22: 682–686.
26.
KamranMYarnoldJGrunwaldIQ, et al.Assessment of angiographic outcomes after flow diversion treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a new grading schema. Neuroradiology2011; 53: 501–508.
27.
VakhariaKWaqasMMunichSA, et al.Is contrast stasis after pipeline embolization device deployment associated with higher aneurysm occlusion rates?World Neurosurg2020; 133: e434–e442.
28.
AbbasRSaieghFANaamaniKE, et al.Robot-assisted carotid artery stenting: outcomes, safety, and operational learning curve. Neurosurg Focus2022; 52: 17.
29.
AdeebNDibasMGriessenauerCJ, et al.Learning curve for flow diversion of posterior circulation aneurysms: a long-term international multicenter cohort study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2022; 43: 1615–1620.
30.
ErnstMJamousABartlM, et al.Multicenter study of the safety and effectiveness of intracranial aneurysm treatment with the p64MW-HPC flow modulation device. Interv Neuroradiol2023: 15910199231220964. doi: 10.1177/15910199231220964
31.
SchwabRKabbaschCGoertzL, et al.The DERIVO 2 heal embolization device in the treatment of ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a retrospective multicenter study. Clin Neuroradiol2025; 35: 25–34.
