ArticleJournal of neurointerventional surgery2020
Preclinical safety and efficacy evaluation of the Pipeline Vantage Embolization Device with Shield Technology.
Article in Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Initial Experience with the Pipeline Vantage Flow Diverter for Intracranial Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Pooled it
- Defining biomaterial-driven design principles for bioabsorbable flow diverters: current state and perspectives.Bioactive materials · 2027Review
- Midterm Results on Pipeline Vantage Embolization Device (MR-PVED): First Reported Experience in Asia.Asian journal of neurosurgery · 2026Article
- Angiographic and clinical outcomes from 396 aneurysms treated with the pipeline flex embolization device with shield technology.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026Article
- Light Transmission Aggregometry Versus VerifyNow for Antiplatelet Monitoring in Flow Diversion: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative hemocompatibility assessment of fibrin/heparin-coated and PMEA-coated flow diverters.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026Article
- RECOAT study - Retrospective evaluation of surface-modified and coated flow diverters for the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Flow diverter surface modifications for aneurysm treatment: A review of the mechanisms and data behind existing technologies.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026Review
- Magnesium-based bioresorbable flow diverter for intracranial aneurysms: a pilot study of biocompatibility and bioresorption in a rabbit vascular model.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2025Article
- Subgroup analysis of pipeline Flow-Diverter devices in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: A long-term real-world study involving 190 patients.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Efficacy and Safety in the Use of Pipeline Vantage Shield Stent versus Pipeline Flex Shield Stent in the Treatment of Patients with Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Multicenter Study.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Outcome study of the Pipeline Vantage Embolization Device (second version) in unruptured (and ruptured) aneurysms (PEDVU(R) study).Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2024Article
- Multicenter Experience with the Pipeline Flex and Vantage with Shield Technology for Intracranial Aneurysm Treatment.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Observational
- Comparison of Flow Reduction Efficacy of Nominal and Oversized Flow Diverters Using a Novel Measurement-assisted in Silico Method.Clinical neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Flow Diversion for Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms: Past, Present, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Intraluminal Flow Diverter Design Primer for Neurointerventionalists.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Review
- Early Outcomes of the Pipeline Vantage Flow Diverter : A Multicentre Study.Clinical neuroradiology · 2023Review
- Poly(2-methoxyethyl acrylate) (PMEA) improves the thromboresistance of FRED flow diverters: a thrombogenic evaluation of flow diverters with human blood under flow conditions.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2023Article
- Regulatory perspectives of combination products.Bioactive materials · 2022Review
- Telescoping pipeline vantage embolization devices with shield technology for the treatment of a giant, symptomatic dolichoectatic basilar trunk aneurysm.Surgical neurology international · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Pipeline Vantage Embolization Device with Shield Technology is a next generation flow diverter developed to improve aneurysm occlusion and implant endothelialization in addition to lowering thrombogenicity. We report here the in vivo biocompatibility and in vitro hemocompatibility performance of the Pipeline Vantage Embolization Device with Shield Technology (Vantage) compared with the Pipeline Flex Embolization Device (Flex).
methodsBiocompatibility (via histology), aneurysm occlusion and vessel patency (via angiography), and endothelial coverage (via scanning electron microscopy (SEM)) for the Vantage and Flex devices were assessed in the rabbit elastase aneurysm model at 90 days (n=29) and 180 days (n=27). In vitro thrombogenicity for Flex and Vantage (n=16) was assessed using a human blood flow loop model at low heparin concentration (0.6 U/mL) with thrombin generation, platelet activation and thrombus visualization as outputs.
resultsRaymond Roy Occlusion Classification grade 1 was higher for Vantage (61%) compared with Flex (46%), but was not statistically significant (p>0.05). All branch vessels were patent. Histological measures for both devices were similar (p>0.05). Endothelial coverage of the implant was significantly better for Vantage compared with Flex (p<0.05). In vitro measurements of thrombin generation (thrombin-antithrombin complex (µg/mL): Vantage 0.49±0.45; Flex 10.57±9.84) and platelet activation (β-thromboglobulin (IU/µl): Vantage 0.41±0.19; Flex 4.14±2.38) were both statistically lower (p
conclusionVantage improved aneurysm occlusion and implant endothelialization and had significantly lower thrombogenicity as compared with Flex, while preserving the biocompatibility safety profile of Flex.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.