Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34515551›Full record

ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2022

Long-term results and comparison of flow re-direction endoluminal device and pipeline embolization device in endovascular treatment of intracranial carotid aneurysms.

Cemal A Gündoğmuş, Soheil Sabet, Nurten A Baltacıoğlu, Derya Türeli, Yaşar Bayri, Feyyaz Baltacıoğlu

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comparative safety, efficacy, and predictors of complete occlusion of flow diverter devices in the treatment of unruptured distal anterior cerebral artery aneurysms.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cemal A GündoğmuşDepartment of Radiology, 64050Marmara University, School of Medicine, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8662-994X
Soheil SabetDepartment of Radiology, 64050Marmara University, School of Medicine, Turkey.
Nurten A BaltacıoğluDepartment of Radiology, 64090VKV Amerikan Hastanesi, Turkey.
Derya TüreliDepartment of Radiology, 64050Marmara University, School of Medicine, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4784-3294
Yaşar BayriDepartment of Neurosurgery, 64050Marmara University, School of Medicine, Turkey.
Feyyaz BaltacıoğluDepartment of Radiology, 64050Marmara University, School of Medicine, Turkey.
Marmara University · TRAmerikan Hastanesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes of two flow diverters, i.e., pipeline embolization device and flow re-direction endoluminal device, in the treatment of distal carotid aneurysms.

methodsA total of 138 patients with 175 aneurysms were included from February 2012 to September 2019. Ninety-nine aneurysms were treated with flow re-direction endoluminal device and 76 with pipeline embolization device. Angiographic follow-ups were at the 6th, 12th, 24th, 36th, and 60th months; the O'Kelly-Marotta grading scale was used to assess aneurysms occlusion. Outcomes of two devices were compared; possible associations regarding patient characteristics, aneurysm properties, treatment details, and adverse events were evaluated.

resultsThe mean follow-up period was 33 months, with 10 patients lost to follow-up. Occlusion rates at the 6th and 12th months and during the last follow-up were similar for flow re-direction endoluminal device (81%, 84%, and 90%) and pipeline embolization device (82%, 85%, and 93%). Occlusion rates were also similar after stand-alone use without coiling. There was no significant difference regarding adverse event rates with a 10.9% overall complication rate, 3.6% mortality, and 0.7% permanent morbidity. All the mortality and morbidity were related to hemorrhagic complications. Device deployment failure was observed with five flow re-direction endoluminal devices and two pipeline embolization devices, whereas two severe in-stent stenoses occurred with each device.

conclusionsBoth flow re-direction endoluminal device and pipeline embolization device are feasible and effective in flow diversion of distal internal carotid artery aneurysms, with similar adverse events rates and aneurysm occlusion success. Aneurysm occlusion rates increase with time, while the presence of an integrated branch significantly decreases treatment success.

Indexed as

Embolization, TherapeuticEndovascular ProceduresIntracranial AneurysmBlood Vessel ProsthesisHumansRetrospective StudiesStentsTreatment OutcomeAneurysmflow diverterflow re-direction endoluminal deviceinternal carotid arterypipeline embolization device

Identifiers

PMID34515551
PMCPMC9185104
OpenAlexW3199761503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.